Talk:Graham Staines

message: Revert edit [] done by User:Bakasuprman, it seems a POV'd malicious edit with no documentation. --Kathanar 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Assume Good Faith. Such incivil comments are not appreciated. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. This sort of comment is a Personal attack. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No Hindu extremists have been proven either. I'm not ashamed that I took the blame away from an innocent group, when it was only Dara Singh and Mahendra Hembram. The children being burned has nothing to do with Graham Staines himself, he's still a reviled figure in Orissa, and this incident merely heightened conflict between Christians and adivasis and proved the Sangh correct about conversions. Children? there are children killed by the NLFT,in the name of Jesus. Merely trying to emotionally blackmail us isnt going to make us like Graham Staines. When Hindus die, you dont seem to care, so why should we care now?Bakaman 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such hateful remarks coming from a user clearly questions as to who is the "fanatic". A clear ploy by partisan groups to deflect attention from atrocities against one community by vilifying them is a typical and obvious propaganda tactic that is being repeated on wikipedia by Christian missionary sympathizers who are spreading hate in India and abroad. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a soapbox for hate-speech and you need to learn this quickly.Rumpelstiltskin223 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice and wordy, User:Rumpelstiltskin223good advice, Might I suggest you apply it to yourself and your views, as it might provide better use that way, regards--Kathanar 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ehm, to both, please calm down, I must say that all this could be said in a far friendlier manner. Assuming, that the others pov is propaganda and hate-speech is not the best way to collaborate. After all, what is propaganda changes from the prospective of the observer; for this we don't search the truth in wikipedia, but only verifiability.--Aldux 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If I can add a few words, to start with, Kathanar, really, assume good faith; you must always start thinking that even if you disagree with an editor, he also is striving to write a better article. Also, a friendly attitude makes it easier to collaborate with other editors, even if these have different povs than yours. Passing to the content, I've removed "forcible"; this is a strong claim, and as WP:RS teaches, especially strong claims need strong sourcing. Cheers to all,--Aldux 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Kathanar, remember that you must always assume good faith, even if does NOT go both ways. If you always start assuming good faith, it will be easier that even the most suspicious do the same. Also remember that every single editor in wikipedia, me and you included, have a pov, and this is perfectly legitimate. If you object to some edits, simply discuss calmly why you feel they violate policy, discuss on wording, and remember that unsourced additions can under WP:V be removed, and that even if sourced it must respect WP:RS. And remember you can add alternative povs (obviously, these too must respect WP:V and WP:RS).--Aldux 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revert to previous

message: I am new to the discussion of this article, but it seems that most of the article is about local tensions and allegations. Very little of the article is about Staines, who is the official topic of the article. I suggest that almost all of the "Subsequent events" section be deleted. I know some people have worked hard to write this section, but it seems odd that an article about a person has the longest section about events after his death.  What do others think?Pete unseth (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Has article lost focus?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Graham Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110409123228/http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/wadhwa/Graham.html to http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/wadhwa/Graham.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Graham Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409123228/http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/wadhwa/Graham.html to http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/wadhwa/Graham.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Supreme Court's initial statement with regards to Dara Singh's case had a citation which redirected to a dead URL. I initially added a dead link tag. Upon searching through Supreme Court records, which had shifted to a different source, I obtained the document and also added an extra line for the context of the statement. AB1908 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective Change of Source