Bhaskar1992

Hello, Bhaskar1992, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Requesting deletion

To request deletion of a file that you have uploaded, add {{db-author}} to the top of the file page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your edit

Dear Bhaskar1992, this is your edit (as we had discussed on our user page):

In a 2002 interview, Modi said his only regret about the episode (of 2002 riots) was that he did not handle the news media better. Critics of Modi have used this statement to argue that Modi wanted to curb free speech at that time. In Modi's defense, many have pointed out the allegedly biased reporting of many media houses. Notably, a popular blogger who goes by the name "Ravinar" wrote and explained in his blog how certain reporters exaggerated and intensified the dangerous atmosphere.

Hour after hour after hour we hear the most horrific stories of mass killings all over the state. In cities, towns, villages and even on highways. Words like mass murder, genocide, pogrom start to gain currency in some quarters. Were there terrible killings? You bet, some of it very horrible. But the kind of dramatic and hysterical reporting on TV was no more news reporting. It was almost fanning the flames. So much so that in some areas some TV channels had to be shut down to contain the provocation. As in the case of war, even in an unfortunate communal riot such as this, ‘truth’ is the first casualty. The numbers-killed story was generously sprinkled with imagination of people being raped, foetuses ripped and more by the media. I can safely say that the response to the Godhra train burning was spontaneous. The Gulbarg case which has become prominent because of the widow of Ehsan Jafri, killed by mobs, were attacks by mobs that would have been difficult to handle by any police force given that many other parts of Ahmedabad were equally badly affected. For all this to make one man singularly responsible could not have been anything but an agenda driven media. This agenda had to be surely backed by political forces and extraordinary influx of funds. This is where the witch hunt of Narendra Modi started”.

— Ravinar, www.mediacrooks.com

Modi was himself quoted saying this in an interview-

It was my endeavour that we restore peace at the earliest possible. If you look at the data you will see that in 72 hours we had put down the riots and brought the situation under control. But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again. At the time, Rajdeep and Barkha were in the same channel NDTV. During those inflamed days, Barkha acted in the most irresponsible manner. Surat had not witnessed any communal killings, barring a few small incidents of clashes. However the bazaars were closed [as a precautionary measure]. Barkha stood amidst closed shops screaming “This is Surat’s diamond market, but there is not a single police man here.

I phoned Barkha and said, “Are you providing the address of this “unprotected” bazaar to the rioting mobs? Are you inviting them to come and create trouble there by announcing that there is no police here so you can run amok safely?” In a second incident in Anjar, she played up the news that a Hanuman mandir had been broken and vandalized. I told her, “What are you up to? You are in Kutch which is a border district. There you are showing the attack and destruction of a mandir. Do you realize the implications of broadcasting such news? We haven’t yet recovered from the earthquake. Have you actually done proper investigation into the riots? Why are you lighting fires for us? Your news takes a few minutes to broadcast that such and such place is unprotected or a mandir has been vandalized. But it takes for me a few hours to move the police from one disturbed location to another since these incidents are breaking out in the most unexpected places.”

What is worse, when I got the matter enquired into by the local police, we found out that it was a small, insignificant structure under a tree which had been damaged a little bit by some crazy individual. But NDTV presented it as an attack on a Hanuman mandir. When the fires were raging these journalists were pouring fuel on those fires. On that day I had put a ban on TV channels because they were actually provoking trouble. But it was only for one day. Since Rajdeep Sardesai was among the leading reporters covering the disturbances, I phoned him to say, “I will have to put a temporary ban on your channel if you continue with the provocative coverage. There is a well-established regulation that media should not name communities during communal riots nor identify a damaged placed as a mandir or masjid. Why are you violating that code and well set protocol about not naming communities or identifying places, of worship? You are going against established norms.”

— Narendra Modi, Manushi.in

Moreover, many websites have tried to refute the allegations hurled at Modi. One of such websites, Gujarat Riots, attempts to ""bring out the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH"" of the Gujarat riots of 2002; including the truth of "myths" like "the Gujarat police turned a blind eye to the rioting", "the Gujarat government was involved in the riots", that Narendra Modi said:”Every action has equal and opposite reaction”, "Narendra Modi gave free hand to rioters for 3 days", "no one was brought to justice for the riots" etc. But the most interesting of all the "myths" is the myth regarding the "famous statement" of former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee who, according to a large section of media, allegedly said Modi was not following Rajdharma and advised him to treat everyone equally. But the video recording of the press conference where Mr. Vajpayee allegedly said the statement proves that Mr. Vajpayee never said that Modi was not following Rajdharma. Instead he acknowledged that Rajdharma was followed by Modi and his administration. Even then over the years these unfounded myths and allegations have created a perception of Modi being a hugely divisive and polarizing leader.

Thanks a ton, MohitSingh. With regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

List of prime minister edit

Modi is 15th PM. Its only correct if we counted Gulzarilal nanda as 2nd in the list. That is what i did. Dont change PM list. So dont undo my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KappatD (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I realized my mistake. I overlooked the fact that you corrected it. I apologize for that. My thinking was you should've simply undo the previous edit. I removed my message from your talk page as soon as I realized my mistake. Modi is indeed the 15th Prime Minister of India. Thanks for your quick edit. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bhaskar1992. You have new messages at Strike Eagle's talk page.
Message added 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Narendra Damodardas Modi - own pronunciation.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Narendra Damodardas Modi - own pronunciation.ogg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)