User talk:Bladesmulti/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Bladesmulti[edit]

Appreciate your succinct edits & explanations. --AmritasyaPutra 05:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing comments atleast.[edit]

Hey will you stop removing my comments from the talk pages? AbhinavKumar1289 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Socks are not allowed to edit wikipedia and because you have shamelessly violated your editing benefits I think you should just stop now. Try requesting unblock after 1 year or more, but on your main account Siddheart. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti I have compassion for you. May god guides you on the right path. AbhinavKumar1289 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Says the one who don't believe god.[1] Bladesmulti (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Saffron terror[edit]

Hi, I support you in saying that unleashing "saffron terror" does not equate to being a terrorist organization. However, removing the "saffron terror" idea entirely is unreasonable and it would amount to a destructive edit. So, please mention the "saffron terror" idea elsewhere before you remove the current description. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"saffron terror" is found to be an oxymoron term coined by secular congress leaders for their vote bank policies,none of the terror accused is proven to be guilty in court to this date and there is nothing attributed to Hinduism about those terror attacks. I think the page "saffron terror" must be deleted.Rim sim (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Try a AFD but nothing will happen because term is notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you check this discussion and provide comments if any.[edit]

Could you check this discussion and provide an independent comment if any. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Please discuss your wholesale reverts to my recent edits, accompanied with a dismissive edit summary. To put a fine point to it, the sources and content removed are crap, and their on-page age is irrelevant when it comes to policy and Hindu Dharm.

That is usual expression for edit summaries "A likely story!" "more original research" etc. I am not sure why you considered [2] to be unreliable source. I know that 2 paragraphs are unsourced but I just looked around and already found sources. Maybe you should assume good faith. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If "nonsensical removal" is your usual edit summary expression then perhaps you'd be better off editing elsewhere. I removed the cite because it is vague, incomplete and misleading, and also because the content before it is a load of speculative POV pushing crap. Now if you have nothing specific further to add about my reverts I'll reinsert them after a decent interval. BTW: If you have additional reliable sources - CITE them. Lindashiers (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't use 2nd. rate biased sources like you did for the "Sikhism" section in this article. Lindashiers (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Praveen Togadia dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I already inserted a picture of Brahmin priest[edit]

I already inserted a picture of Brahmin priestVictoriaGraysonTalk 15:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It can edited. 00:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoroaster sock[edit]

Raised this at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the Praveen Togadia dispute, concluding that other dispute resolution processes should be attempted first. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The BLP Barnstar for maintaining neutrality on Praveen Togadia[edit]

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
for maintaining neutrality on Praveen Togadia. Thank you. AmritasyaPutra 02:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! Bladesmulti (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I too appreciated you standing up to the 50-foot killer woman. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


You're sharp! Your multi-wired jumping-all-directions brain seems to be good at spotting socks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Bladesmulti (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Excuse me? When have I put un-sourced articles in that page? All the information from me have been borrowed from published papers and other sources and I have given proper references for all of them. Yes, maybe the amount of information given was a bit lengthy and wordy in some cases, but to say I have contributed with no proper references is false.

Plus, what is your reason behind deleting a whole paragraph regarding the 'Muluki Ain' page. I think the information regarding that topic is instrumental in relation to this topic, and deleting that for the reason as of "un-verifiable" resources is invalid. Also, I mentioned that there are 3 distinct societies in Nepal that adopted this caste structure, but you seemed to have deleted the headline of "Caste - Origin Hill Hindu - Parbatiyas or Khas" while maintained the other two. Either give me proper reasoning for that or I am undoing your edit.

Nepalichoro255 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Its because you had added them back. They are some opinions with no sources.
Also you cannot find any references for the terms that were used in the article, it is better to keep it like it was before. All of these unsourced opinions were added on 5th September, not that long.
I had told before too. Even now, for most of the content of those section we rely on a dead link. So why there is need to add opinions? Even if you have to think that they are true, just read Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Had viewed that page few hours ago, you have reinserted the same title again. Lets see if you or I can find source about it. Or else we have always got alternative way, just stick to common terms. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Common terms? Those are the common terms used. It is understandable that some section of Nepali soceity has frowned upon the word Khas and Parbatiyas due to the historic negative connotation associated with those terms. If you don't know what I am talking about, then go read a book or something before trying to dive into a topic you have no idea about. And regarding the references, I am continually researching as of now to get the studies through which I borrowed the information. I'll edit this talk page, so stay tuned for my reply, and be ready for a fracking apology. Nepalichoro255 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION: CASTE/ETHNICITY AND RELIGION IN NEPAL - Dr.Dilli Ram Dahal Teen Life in Asia - edited by Judith J. Slater Nationalism and Ethnicity in a Hindu Kingdom: The Politics and Culture of Contemparary Nepal by D. Gellner, J. Pfaff-Czarnecka, J. Whelpton Nepalichoro255 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't called all of them to be uncommon, "Hindu hill groups" is a uncommon term, we were talking about it. It has been used around internet, for referring those who live in Shimla, Bhutan and Nepal, but there is no official record. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Official Nepali Census taken by the Government of Nepal itself calls them "Hill Hindu" groups/castes/people as opposed to the "Terai Hindu" castes. I don't know how "official" it can get from that. Most anthropological or even basic social researches refer to the general group as "Parbatiya/Parbate/Khas people/Hill Hindus". It is only in local parlance however that those terms are uncommon, where caste names like Bahun, Chhetri, etc. are used. Towards A Democratic Nepal by Mahendra Lawoti

(talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) If you still think some information are "opinions" then list them out specifically. I will present you with references. If I am not able to find references for those claims then you are more than welcome to delete those information. But do not try to force out my contribution, again aided by properly referenced studies, on the false accusation of being "opinions". Nepalichoro255 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

When I was talking about opinions, it was correct accusation and it is still apparent. I considered those massive amount of unsourced content which was added under Muluki Ain to be opinions. You were only recovering the first section about "Khas or Parbatiyas", but you had also recovered the unsourced opinions added under Muluki Ain. If I had to remove, I would have reverted you again, but this time your revert was generally non-controversial and better than the previous revert. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay I accept the fact that much of the written information may seem to be worded improperly but whatever written were, again, not my personal opinions but historical facts. But I am okay with you removing those information as the page itself was becoming tediously long and there were many un-required and out of topic information. However, it would be beneficial to all the readers if you added a bit about how Muluki Ain came into play in Nepal's history, and a brief background before it, re: Jayasthitimalla

Nepalichoro255 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I still keep that section and pretty long. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The MfD[edit]

I know that you mean well but it may indeed be the time to hang back a little at the MfD. You'll end up being dragged into the wider mess and I doubt that is something that you would look forward to. Your comments thus far are appreciated but, please, don't get entangled any more than you really have to. This is going to end up as an ArbCom case and, if nothing else, those things tend to be very time-consuming. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed and looking at current situation of ANI, things seems to be pretty alright. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush is right here. It is a mess, as far as I can see; and it already dragged you into a discussion with Jim. Avoid that; your credits are not that good that you can afford another round of discussion on your Wiki-behaviour. Please take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It takes two sides. Looking at the arbcom case, I am doubtful if it is going to be accepted, firstly it was about to be accepted but due to massive derailment, everyone seems to be declining the case now. Hope everything will be solved without much noise. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey, do you think I'm a liar?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What's this about? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore. I didn't replied to Jim Carter, because he seemed to be having hard time on his other account's talk page User talk:Jim_Cartar#AWB and talk pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hard times?? I don't think so. Now, tell me do you want a snapshot? I can upload it if you wish. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So, do you have any words to say. First of all you started baiting and badgering other's in the discussion, asked others to learn something, used a bit personal attack, and mostly tried to blud others with whom you disagree. As I said, MfD is not a battleground and I'm quite familiar with it. You are actually commenting on the contributors instead in the subject. It is possible that others might have disagreements with you, that doesn't mean you start bluding over them. You also started an offtopic discussion by invoking spelling faults, one about "harrass" and other your username. You should not show someone their typo's, they may feel insulted per TPG.
I AGF'd and haven't commented there because MfD is not a forum and by our conversation it looked much like we are discussing something offtopic. I'm not hounding at you my dear friend, just a simple note :-). I hope your replies will be more polite. Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You must be interested in copying new words from that MFD since don't have enough competence to use your own words. When you go claiming "I can't trust him", people would usually look at the status of you and the user you are talking about. Obviously next one seems to be heavier than you here. When you go on telling people to stop discussing it becomes more obvious for others that you are insecure and you are also being disruptive. When someone passes you valid advice, you tell them that it is turning out to be battleground. There is no word like "bluding" in whole English. Lets keep it short, you are not making any sense! Bladesmulti (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Might I suggest that the pair of you let bygones be bygones? The Indic topic area may well be lacking a prolific contributor before many more hours have passed and, really, it will need all the help it can get. Cheers. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. You said copied something?? Your contributions there and here looks like this #5. This is a sign of lack of competence, doubting others in a discussion is a sign of bad faith (not assuming good faith) towards other. It is totally my opinion that "I can't trust him" and it is directed towards him not directing towards you or anyone else. Actually I'm stopping them from invoking offtopic discussions and as I said judging others !vote is never a good thing. And I suppose, you still think what you did there and here is correct, this is a sign of WP:IDHT. And I don't see where you gave a valid advice, you asked me to learn "harass" which is not actually a valid advice per WP:TPG. Your words are still not polite. If you continue assuming bad faith then I'm afraid ANI will be my next stop. Thank you for your understanding. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes you wouldn't get due to your lack of competence like others have also agreed recently.[3] [4] #5 is talking about the rejection of community ideas or consensus, I have not done that. You can discuss others votes, but when you put same format for every single vote while ignoring the general issues,(like notability) then it becomes disruptive for others. None of it seems to be applying here. You can read Wikipedia:WIKILAWYERING, that is what you are doing without knowing the actuality of policies. Just drop the stick and move on. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said if you wish take this to ANI and get a boomerang. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Issue is already ended, now just wait till that MFD is over. I am already out of there unless someone replies like one had before. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bladesmulti. Saying "...due to your lack of competence..." in the same breath as "...Just drop the stick and move on..." is unfair, includes a personal attack, and is bait for a response. We all know how to exist at Wikipedia and express ourselves without zapping each other. Please, let's try to get along, or at least effectively disengage when we cannot. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I will remember it. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Do I know you?[edit]

Namaskar, do I know you? -- weird question? Actually many editors change usernames here, and (at least for me) it takes a long time to understand the username change. I have seen some of your recent edits and comments. Quite remarkable. Have you changed your username recently? Regards. --TitoDutta 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Namaskar Titodutta, I always had this screen name. You have seen me around before, see Archive 41#Impressed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

unexplained edit[edit]

I believe you removed a comment I added to the page on Caste system in India. The statement "Dalits are still at the bottom of the income and social ladders, but they have gained substantially in the reform era" is an important, highlighted statement in the cited reference. It provides a balanced POV to the statements preceding it. Why did you delete it? If there is no good reason, it will be added back.--Cyclops112 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is one sided opinion, because Dalits are often billionaires and having strong political positions. Dalits had higher income and literacy than all Muslims of India. Although Hindu Dalits Vs Muslim Dalits is yet to be confirmed.
I strongly urge you to stop socking and use only 1 account or IP when you are editing. Or you will be indefinitely blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your message. When I originally checked the talk page, I found it somewhat complicated so I accepted the explanation in good faith. Although I am a little relieved that my original interpretation was correct, I am sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and that I did not understand the matter a little better. Thanks for sorting this out. Donner60 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I like your user page. Very creative. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry[edit]

I can't believe there is an edit war on a policy page about which redirects to display. Please just leave it as it is and discuss on the talk page, whether you're right or not it doesn't matter what's there in the interim. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc SmokeyJoe made 2 reverts on first day, later he used talk page and he found some editors who support his idea. I made only 1 revert like Bbb23, and that was some days ago. Seemed necessary then. I wasn't actually serious about those redirects. I had checked the recent revert few hours ago, I haven't reverted because I don't want to edit that particular content anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for not reverting back. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


User talk:Nepalichoro255 has been vandalising the article Shrestha.He removes texts with no sources or references.Shrofshrs (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Take care here, Blades; messy area. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Shrofshrs, his edits are not vandalism, Nepalichoro255 will probably sort out the whole mess in few days, if you find it hard, you can just request for page protection. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah – you spotted that one right. I closed my eyes for a couple days and ...

The accused is one of a handful of Nepali contributors that aren't socks. The accuser is apparently unfamiliar with boomerangs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Good response, Blades Face-smile.svg Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


It is just I tought you were not mentored any more ... so you are free to do what you want. Hafspajen (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Was kdding. Yes and you seem to be more active than ever. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits in Hinduism section of Fornication article[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced text that has been challenged. You are welcome to add it once you find and cite a WP:RS published reference, as we discussed on the article's talk page. Please stop WP:TE in Fornication as well, such as removing reliable scholarly sourced content that is relevant, notable and presents different sides for WP:NPOV summary about premarital and extramarital sex in Hinduism. WeyburnFarm (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

According to you, NPOV applies if you add anything that distracts from the Hinduism' condemnation of fornication. You know the source don't include anything really about premarital or extramarital sex. If you are going to offer the opinions of Hindus, you have to state what they deemed to be correct or incorrect. "Sexual indulgences" may not be limited with extramarital sex or premarital. Similarly, Niyog is not to be confused with fornication or adultery, provided you a source about it. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. If we are adding about Kamasutra, we will soon add about the Indian movies? I should count how many times you had to correct your own edition after reading my reply on talk page? You should continue on the article talk page. I would have called at least 2 other experienced editors, but they are inactive for a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I edit war? | Assisted by Citation bot r579[edit]

Not trying to evade the conversation at ANI, just trying not to turn it into even more of a noisy mess, with side conversations.

The incident you mentioned, if I remember right: I did one original edit, and 3 reverts. Was informally warned on my talk page. I can't remember if there was an ANI... but I wasn't sanctioned, as I hadn't crossed the 3RR line. (A revert consists of removing another editors work. An edit that affects work done in the past by indeterminate editors is not a revert.) Had I crossed the line and been sanctioned, it would have been a few days of block.

In retrospect, I should have done one less revert, then tried some other DRN. But I still haven't figured out the right order to get the best results. In this article, disputes resist resolution

I try not to edit war.

Couple weeks ago a guy came down hard on me on my text page for some citation repairs I did, accused me of edit warring. Id just repaired 3 citations corrected misrepresentative text. Nothing near an edit was. It wasn't till I posted the conversation back to the talk page where everyone could see what he'd said that he realized "oops" he was mistaken. He apologized. And is now attacking me in ANI.

If youve got some evidence of wrongdoing on my part, please post it on ANI with diffs. Most of the complaints about don't actually have any evidence. In many cases, what they say l said is totally different - even with evidentiary proof a few seconds away.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

[5], [6], [7], [8] 4 reverts in 24 hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The first was not a revert. See [9] I'd defer to an experienced admin if they said it was 4reverts. but, fwiw i thought i stopped at the right moment. Bill the cat

Still, it academic, and not related to the current ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I was once blocked for altering related content for 4 times. That is edit warring, whenever you alter particular content during the content dispute with opposing editor. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Bladesmulti. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Hello Bladesmulti. I am working with students as part of a University Class and teaching them a little about editing Wikipedia. The assignment,

was to go out into a peer reviewed scholarly article on Hinduism and take information from the article to populate pages that have been flagged needing verification or articles that could benefit from the material of the scholar.

We approach this with humility and the underlying goal to understand a little more of Hinduism and a little more of Wikipedia.

I've noticed several of the students edits have been reverted by you. The most recent...

Religion in India – Education Section

The increase in acceptance of intercaste marriages has helped to make love marriages more possible. Although, marrying inter-religiously poses a problem. An interfaith marriage often leads to the Hindu spouse renouncing his or her religion. [1][2]I

The divorce rate may be due to the stigma placed on divorce in Hinduism. The stigma lies, not with the law, but with the morals of Hinduism. [3]

May I ask you advice on how to better inform my students of Wikipedia protocols. They have gone through the training for students and are quoting researched material by citing their sources. Any input would be appreciated to better help them serve the Wikipedia community.

Thanks Isumataq 15:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Template:Sharma, Arvind. 1985. Marriage in the hindu religious tradition. ''Journal of ecumenical studies'' 22(Winter): 69-80.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Template:Sharma, Arvind. 1985. Marriage in the hindu religious tradition. ''Journal of ecumenical studies'' 22(Winter): 69-80.
Intercaste marriages actually help making love marriages more possible? No, it is the law that does. I don't read any specific comment, on any books that would read anything like "that time, laws were not favorable to..." Laws have changed by time, just like the society has.
Social issues are not to be informed as religious issues. If someone argues about some particular cases, that they have renounced religion due to caste barriers, it is still an excuse. Not even a therapy.
Usually there are many reasons, why a person renounces their religion. It has to do nothing with the morals. We always had people who have rebelled against the basic rules of society and also against the socially(not religiously) established hierarchies. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for contributing to RfA. Here is something for you to read. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless editors Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Blade, you are indeed tireless, no? Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Tireless edit warrior. Haha.. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Peace and love, Bladesmulti .... Face-smile.svgHafspajen (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Is this a sock? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know it's a duck account, but don't know who's behind it. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgiveness and love message[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your kindness and sorry for my behavior. (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bladesmulti, I am Abhinav (that's my real name). I am 17 year old. I just came here to ask for forgiveness for whatever I said to you here on Wikipedia. I retaliated against your edits out of my love for Babasaheb Ambedkar. I don't have any personal enmity with you. We have been continuously fighting with each other here on Wikipedia and also your extremely sharp mind got me banned for several times. I know that I can't edit Wikipedia but still wanted to convey my sorry message. I hope you will forgive me. Would you like to be my friend on Facebook Id? My Id is [10] I hope we can be friends. (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok nice. Now read, you should take break and think about yourself some more. You should research what you have ignored and why you lose your temper. Wikipedia is not therapy, but if you would like to change yourself, I will definitely talk with Bbb23, regentspark and ohnoitsjamie after few months or years. Just like you have done now, you can tell me again. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

help needed[edit]

Hi, I need help for the article here Aurobindo, I have put the article 3 times for GA and have allways put down!, the last time it was GA for 15 days and was again taken down :( can you help me out ? . will be able to colloborate with you on any article in furture. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to. Just 1 week of work is required. I will try. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Shrikanthv I have not researched a lot. Here's my view:-
Page is victim of inappropriate tagging. Some sources of both page(no.) and book title, still they are tagged with full citation needed. These tags should be inserted inside the citations, not outside the citation.
Criticism has to be merged with Followers, Influence, and renamed to Legacy. List of followers is incomplete, and anyone would think that Aurobindo only had old people as his followers and they are not living anymore.
Literary work should not include any paragraphs, it should only include a list. He has written enough books that it will deserve a separate article.
It will be good to read about him again. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You've crossed the three revert per 24 hour threshold on the article Buddhism. I'm not going to report you for this immediately, but I would ask that you revert your deletion of the section "Apologetics" immediately. The Pope Benedict quote may be omitted for the time being if it is that intolerable to you, or perhaps referenced in passing. Note that it is not wikipedia policy that we have to cite Benedict's research in order to include a quote of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talkcontribs) 13:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

3rr is 3 revert under 24 hours. In last 24 hours I have made 2 reverts. It is not even a point. Back to article talk(page). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've suspended my charge against you of edit warring on the basis of your further cooperation on the Buddhism article. Now let's work together constructively to fix the page, since it seems we're actually in agreement on the key points.

Wgw2024 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there some reason, other than the length of time, why you believe I should? Revoking talk page access doesn't cut him off from requesting unblock; there's the OTRS system for that (of course it means he can't use the unblock requests as a soapbox, since a lot less people will see it, but that's not my problem). I'm sorry if I sound skeptical, but I've never had anyone make this sort of request before. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & Why![edit]

1 & 2 did I do anything wrong? --Manuspanicker (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Manuspanicker See talk(page) of the article, had discussed about it before. Devadasi concept had to do nothing with the prostitution, it was just about a girl marrying a temple and maintaining it for whole life. Last estimate found 33% of the devadasis to be engaged in prostitution, but that's not as much as 39% of the nurses being in prostitution. It cannot be categorized or related to prostitution, unless there was something theoretical. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay! I did miss the talk page! thank you :) TC --Manuspanicker (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Discoverer[edit]

Thank you, but I think it doesn't belong there. That page's restrictions are for formal declarations: pronouncements by the Arbitration Committee, pronouncements by Jimbo, and the results of community discussions. This situation, where an administrator says "I'll block you if you do X anymore", is rather more informal and (unlike the formal declarations) subject to being overturned by any other administrator. Of course, if you wish to ask for community-imposed sanctions in this case (either formalising what I said, or imposing other restrictions), you may do that, but you'll need to request it at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend I thought that it is a topic ban, but I missed the other, where you said that it is not formal. Thanks for pointing it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bladesmulti. You have new messages at Talk:Red Fort#To add or not to add.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bladesmulti. You have new messages at Talk:Widow#Regarding the recognition of same-sex marriages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit?[edit] Really spam? Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is normal to refer such websites as spam link. Nothing so wrong. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


You might want to see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case - the case initiated by Fearofreprisal. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour and don't message me at all[edit]

You are a cyber bully, while I've already given the explanation why did I move the page, still you're trying to bully me and threaten me. Don't come to my page at all. Thanks alot!!! Hemant DabralTalk 01:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm posting this again because it was apparently archived by a bot within three minutes so you may have missed it:

Hi. Thank you for contributing to RfA. Here is something for you to read. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

HinduBarnstar4a.png The Hinduism Award
You deserve this barnstar brother. Carry on. I am proud of you. TitoDutta 03:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Titodduta Bladesmulti (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What user preference?[edit]

Your edit comment made no sense to me. [11]. Please note these sanctions: [12][13] and Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards. Considering his comment was only inflammatory, why would you restore it now that he is banned from that page? He cannot restore it himself and part of that whole Arbcom case was restoring inflammatory comments of editors prohibited from doing so themselves. Such proxy reverts for banned editors were found to be disruptive. Note, he did post stuff that was slightly more productive that wasn't removed, only the completely unproductive comment was removed as it will only be used as troll bait and since he is pagebanned it falls under WP:REVERTBAN. I ask that you undo your revert and respect the page ban that was enabled by ArbCom. --DHeyward (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward They will be kept not only for Tarc's preference. He had made that comment 16 hours before he was topic banned from all administrator boards.
That section was tagged for archive, it shouldn't be edited as per the closing administrator. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no time limit on WP:REVERTBAN and the closing admin can restore those comments if he feels it necessary to justify his close. I don't think he did. --DHeyward (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The 100 Best Books of All Time[edit]

Hello, would you please take a look at Talk:The 100 Best Books of All Time and consider my arguments; this is a published series of books. Then why not include a list of the books in the series? Bw --Orland (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a matter of representing already published material. I will ask a admin who is busy with copyright cleanup. We can wait. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are FINE[edit]


JUST JOKING ... Face-grin.svgHafspajen (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen During those days, whatever mess there was, in a short time it had been cleared well! Just 74. and maybe CorinneSD went missing. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, looks like Corinne doesn't know there are computers in public places too. Hafspajen (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So, we end the mentorship? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


It is called Dakshin meaning South in Hindi. While the word Dakshina means Donation or Tip in Hindi, leads to disambiguation and double meaning. The reason I didn't leave edit summary because it's optional, plus i saw it a minor change. (Spelling correction) One more thing, next time you ever leave a message to someone, be nice and assume good faith. The lanaguage you have used seemed like a threat. Thanks! Hemant DabralTalk 19:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to game the system? Original title was Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha and you made it Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha. Dakshina means gifted education, while Dakshin means south. You had not only changed the official name of this organisation but also the whole meaning.
Your edits are causing disruption for a long time. You have recently moved a long old page title to something new that was uncommon compared to the previous title.[14] Issuing you a final warning about the page moves. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to teach me what does Dakshin means. I know Hindi better than you could ever know dude. And your tone is quite offensive. I Warn you!!! This is your last warning!!! You are gone!!! Haha dude don't talk like a child. Talk like a mature man and discuss the issue. You are not the only man in this world who has a piece of knowledge. There are many others too. Learn to respect them. Dakshina doesn't mean education it means Tip/Offering. Correct yourself there 1st. Discuss it before you judge anyone. You think you're brainy one and all others you assume lesser ones. Hemant DabralTalk 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hemant Dabral This isn't really intended to teach you meanings of terms. It's intended to be the start of a environment to the notation and ideas convenient for working to make qualitative collaborations you are certainly excited about.
Daksh means capable. If that organization has named itself "dakshina" with the purpose of education, what it would mean? Now let us don't argue about the meaning of a word, which is not even relevant. You can just stop making page moves or change words when you are not sure about your information.
Also read Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPT. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Judaism[edit]

Blades, your reverts are fine because the IP is making changes to some sourced content, but the unsourced passage that you are reverting back in really needs sources. Also, the sentence about Narayana should probably be toned down a bit further; it is a bit sweeping at this point (alternatively, you could provide a quote.) Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I had seen every edit of yours, it will take some time to clarify the tagged ones. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, just letting you know; a clarify tag can hang around for a bit, but if you are reverting unsourced content in, sourcing it becomes a bit more urgent. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Some pages[15] - [16] have a clue, but 'most Hindus' was not relevant, it is a basic belief. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki help soon given, Bjp willing just give the shout[edit]

Bladesmulti we would like you to sign up to "Transform India With Narendra Modi” - LocalCircles" Please title your subject as wikipedia editor for india and give any concerns you may have in the main section

As the group is a non paid organisation by the people of indian, anything which you feel troubled about can be given to the page and it will be handed to Mr Modi within one or two weeks, after that the issue will be raised and writers will be sent to help you out with full backing of refs and publishes.

You may delete this comment from your talk page to free up space, best wishes92.236.96.38 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

lol! Express block candidate! how do we request that Blade? --AmritasyaPutraT 20:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder...[edit]

Why a group of editors who I don't even interact with in articlespace anymore are so fired up to have me blocked or banned? It's really something to watch. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear that, also seeking CU for fishing is just inflammatory. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
After getting TBANned, Fearofreprisal has continued to evade his TBAN ("I made a page in my userspace, but it's all a legit part of my ArbCom request!") and continued making personal attacks against other editors (I'm sorry, but assuming that everyone who trusts the professional historians on the historicity of Jesus is a "Christian apologist" is ridiculously offensive). When I called for him to be blocked for this kind of behaviour he went back to making these and similar attacks against me. Once he stops trolling the historicity of Jesus article with his fringe theories, and stops making personal attacks against other editors, I will stop asking for him to be blocked and for him to (voluntarily) declare his main account's identity. Alternative accounts have legit uses (I know this better than most), but claiming that you are trying to protect your real world identity from association with ridiculous fringe theories by using a single-purpose account solely for the purpose of promoting those theories is not one of these legit uses. I can fully understand the need to protect your real identity from legitimately controversial issues, but Bart Ehrman and Dale Martin are not likely to hire thugs to come and "silence" anyone when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, I have read about you as well, obviously you are very aware about legitimate and illegitimate use of multiple accounts. A user disagreed with the siteban proposal, instead he supported a normal block. But I don't think it is going to happen, FOR will be unblocked because he will have to make statement on ARBcom.
FOR's TBAN abuse could be addressed to sanction imposing admin, and he/she would've blocked. But I haven't seen if someone did. I cannot say if FOR is a SPA, he has edited many other pages. He has been tangled up with historicity of Jesus, and probably more time than we usually done on these pages.
I happen to enjoy the subject. Bart Ehrman has been my favorite. Richard Carrier is also very good. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Richard Carrier may be good, but no one in the academy takes his views seriously :P Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems I have a stalker. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sushruta Samhita may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a physician originally of [[Kerala]]<ref>{{cite book|title=The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume One (A To Devo)|page=311|author=Amaresh Datta, various|publisher=Sahitya academy}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for your interest in Ayurveda. It is my opinion that you are encountering more resistance to your proposal than your proposal merits. I do not myself wish to push the issue, but I did want to share that some people are interested in considering problems long term. I have no particular interest in Ayurveda, but I do have general interest in making information about alternative medicine available from the perspective of transparency.

At meta:Wiki Project Med/Projects/Ayurveda there is a description of a project to bring original Sanskrit Ayurvedic texts to Wikisource. This has not yet been done. From there, the intent is to translate them to English, then from English to local Indian languages. You may be aware that people in India have a cultural appreciate for Ayurveda, and I along with others feel that this could be a good project to draw in more health contributors from India.

A side effect of this project would be getting more people to actually develop Wikipedia content on Ayurveda. You seem to care about this, so I thought I would share. If there is something I can do to support your efforts further then I would. At first look, I think you know your way around Wikipedia well enough to take care of yourself, but as I said - you are getting a lot of resistance to the sources you use. My bigger regret here is that I feel Western alternative medicine and history is not held to such high standards. I hope you do not get stressed over this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry. For the ease of readers, like others have said, we had to include to the common terms. These types of edit conflicts have been usual, but it is always good to see that whoever disrupts the project would ultimately face a block.[17] These are normally considered as pretty huge subjects, the more we are into it, the more we learn. I was about to say that I learned a lot from your long and informative comments. I understand that you have a different type of scope, and I also liked how you view these things. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Bladesmulti thank you for reverting the changes of Dillibabuji to Krishna but please don't revert them for a fourth time, as then you may get involved in an edit war. Rather discuss this on the talk page or with Dillibabuji or get a consensus and resolve the issue. Thank you so much. I am just worried about you and you have a lot of potential, and this is the reason why I'm cautioning you. Thank you Bladesmulti. Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take this to your heart! Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking actively. It was probably 2nd time. 2nd last edit was concerned with the wikilink. Obviously since he's gonna add some original research and tell people to don't vandalise, it gets rather funny. Consider I am out from there for some time, posted a message on his talk(page). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand I have faced similar kind of problems several times (so many times that I don't even have count of them), but there always were some editors to caution me. I'm thankful to them! I had also reported this issue to Yunshui who later left a message on Dillibabuji's talk page, saying that he must add references. Dillibabuji later did add references but I later left a message on Yunshui's talk page questioning the verifiability of them and before he could reply you had reverted them and I was finally confident and was assured that they were not reliable. But it is strange to note that even the article Junior wives of Krishna has the same info, where it has existed before Dillibabuji added it to Krishna for the first time. The info is unreferenced even in the "junior wives" article. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
He has made this new account just for editing this pointed subject. He knew that vandalism is common excuse for reverting a edit. New users usually panics when they see warnings on their talk(page), and he has not reacted yet. Must be a duck account. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand. It may be a sock but what about the info in the "junior wives" article. If there's no reference then it must be removed. Am I right or am I right? (:P) Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wait for like 1 week, after tagging it. If there's no response, then see. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is completely an unreferenced info. I have removed it as per WP:BURDEN. 16:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No issue with that change. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


( (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

[removed email address] Bladesmulti (talk)


I just wondered what you thought of the removal of a section from the article on Pali. The edit summary says it was removed because it's unsourced, but if it seems like valuable information, perhaps the source can be found. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some useful citations,[18]-[19] specifically for that section. I will find some more citation later. Bladesmulti (talk)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad you may be blocked from editing. The Vandalism on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad harm Wikipedia's reputation. We are not a religious organisation and hence accept all criticism of religion that referenced with appropriate sources.

Sources here include:

  • Quran [used to counter Mirza preaching]
  • Tirmidhi [used to counter Mirza preaching]
  • Maududi, Abul A'la (1993). Finality of Prophethood. Islamic Publications. See: Abul A'la Maududi
  • Nadwi, Abul. Qadianism - A Critical Study. Islamic Research and Publications.
  • Websites: like
  • Roohani Khazain by Mirza
  • Tadhkirah by Mirza
  • Mawahib-ur-Rahman
  • Dawat-O-Irshad, USA

Removal unjustified

See WP:BP, WP:NOT, WP:VAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjutor101 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is it[edit]

If you continue with your edit-stalking, I am going ANI. Jayakumar RG (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell me, what did you do wrong? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I can provide many examples, but here is one, [20], where he is turning a 9 year old page into a redirect, without making any discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You can see all the examples in my talk page. Just because the page was there for 9 yrs doesn't mean no one should question its inclusion. I reverted his edit at Vedanga Jyotisha and then this whole thing began. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not really surprising that when you could misrepresent a citation, any editor would like to see what type of changes you have made until now. They will also check when you had registered, what is on your talk page, how many contributions you have, etc.
I just reverted you on those pages, about which I knew. I didn't made any changes on any of those subjects that I have hardly edited. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you haven't even read Witzel's paper. You dont know what 'extant' means. There cant be an extant palm-leaf manuscript, preserved since 700-600 BCE! I haven't reverted you there because I dont want to edit-war. The other edits that you reverted were not remotely about interpreting citations. This looks more like biting at best. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I actually did, and you misrepresented the citation. Extant means current form. We rely on reliable citations, and especially when they are published by someone like Havard University and Cambridge University, there is no chance to argue with them. All you can do is avoid original research. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not arguing with Witzel. He says: In sum, if one were to take seriously the autochthonous dates of the Jyotiåa at 1400 BCE,... implying that he disagrees with dating VJ to 1400 BCE. On the contrary, he thinks that VJ should be dated to 700-600 BCE. Its not that the extant form is from 700-600 BCE; the work was originally composed at that time, according to Witzel. Jayakumar RG (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said that he endorsed it, but 600-700 is usually accepted for the current form, while Witzel considered the period of final centuries BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Where did you get that from? Can you please show the relevant text from Witzel's paper? Jayakumar RG (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This paper, right? Where he says last centuries BCE and " while they fit in with the cultural and political climate just before the emergence of the Magadha realm and the Buddha around 500/400 BCE." I don't understand this: "(with the extant form possibly from 700-600 BCE, according to Michael Witzel" which I presume comes from [21] page 29, which is not by Witzel. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Blades' (mis)interpretation, Witzel says: "VJ was originally composed in 1400 BCE, and the extant form is from 700-600 BCE". Jayakumar RG (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That is wholly incorrect. You haven't read, but I had written "Witzel is no where claiming any dating like "700 BCE-600 BCE".."[22] That's why he wasn't even used as source for the clear estimations(e.g. 1400-1200, 700-600) Bladesmulti (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(with the extant form possibly from 700-600 BCE).: The word 'extant' is not at all used in the source. Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Besides, the claim that Witzel is unreliable(which you seconded) cant be further from the truth. He is the expert here. Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Present form is equal to extant. We have to rephrase the sentences for avoiding copyright infringement. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Have a break, and don't forget to smile. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Foreigners w/o the "the" is correct here, since the sentence/para has not specified any particular foreigners previously. I initially thought that I had left the "the" in and corrected it; if I knew of your intermediate edit, I would have left a more explanatory edit summary than just "gr" (ie, grammar). Sorry if that appeared rude. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Bladesmulti, I was reading Category:Quotation_templates and I see there, in my understanding, cquote is intended for non-article pages. I have noticed you have used it before in Shiv Sena and few other article pages. Am I not reading it as intended? --AmritasyaPutraT 13:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to use both block quote, quotations and cquotes. My intention is just to provide special effect to every quotation, only if they are long to read. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The heat is rising[edit]

Blades, you seem to be attracting quite some opposition recently. Might be a hint that you have to be alert on your editing-style... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I am usually dealing with an edit warrior or POV pusher. Abecedare was actually correct[23] about the issue, and Mayasutra is somehow regarding this citation[24] to be unreliable. Let's see. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on India - October 2014[edit]

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Must be a parody of this warning [25]. No one has reverted me on that article, except you. Along with abecedare, I have made 2 reverts on that featured article, because you have no consensus for those changes. I don't deny edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, you have been reverting without an explanation. You are yet to explain why it is disallowed to mention verbatim what both OED and EB mention within ref tags. Whose permission is required for that? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Only said that you should get consensus for the changes you want to make on that page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blades, given the amount of circular discussion on the India talk page related to the etymology section, I think it would be useful for you and I to step back a bit on the talk page, and not respond to each post. The sources are already out there for anyone to check, and I am sure Joshua can address/ping us directly if he has any specific questions for us. Abecedare (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, hope it will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Relax. Worst case scenario is just this. :) Abecedare (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your citation is incorrect[edit]

Your citation at Hindu-Islamic relations is completely incorrect. Mohammed isn't mentioned in page 105. Read the page here [26]. Mohammed isn't even mentioned in the book. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I copied it from other page and it's just a few readers who have access, since it was added after discussion. That particular section was about the Pratisarga Parvan. I have added it accessible one, same book has also got information about Bhavishya purana. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently while undoing your edit I had mentioned the wrong reason for reverting it in the summary. It was a comment which I was going to post on your talk page earlier but I decided against posting it. I had copied it and by mistake posted it in the summary while reverting your edit. I realised this mistake after reverting your edit. I'll therefore mention the reason here. The citation and tour edit are both incorrect like last time. Especially no Hindu scripture can contain anything about Mohammad or his religion nor can call his religion demonic since all of them were written much before his birth and contact of Hinduism and Islam. Also the English in that edit was very poor. It seems to be a malicious edit. I really wonder why you are making such incorrect edits. It seems to me you are spreading hate against Muslims and Islam. And which page are you talking about? If Mahmad or muhammad was mentioned in the book his name would have shown up in the book anyway without buying the book. If you search a word or term even in a preview on Google Books they always show where that word is mentioned even if you can't read the page directly because of it being a preview. Buying the book is not needed to search on which page a word is mentioned. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Everything seems to be fine with that edit. Adding that it has been there for more than 5 years, no one ever touched that particular content. In order to have full preview you have to purchase a book. Not even a matter because I have added a available book. If the book is snippet, you are still not able to search whole text. No one cares about your original research especially on main article(page), no Hindu scripture can contain anything about Mohammad is definitely original research, if you know at least one single reliable source that would support your opinion, we can attribute it and but remember that it has to be published by a reliable publisher. You may keep reverting a sourced edit with the reason that spreading hate against Muslims and Islam, and I can just request a topic ban against this sort of attitude. I am sending you a formal warning on your talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me when did I say you are spreading hate against Muslims and Islam. I said it seems to me you are. There is a difference. I don't have any fault for thinking in such a way because frankly it were your edits that had incorrect citations. Instead of threatening with topic bans you should discuss instead. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want any further discussion, just use the article talk(page). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I am going to check your edits and if I find any edit has dubious or incorrect citation I am going to inform you and then delete it even though it is a policy that unverifiable content can be deleted without any notice. However I will discuss with you first before deleting them in case your edits are indeed unverifiable. I hope you recognise that edits like "Muhammad religion is described as demonic" can become hugely controversial and if aren't properly cited then they should be deleted. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes there's nothing wrong with removing unverifiable content. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I am modifying your edit. No Hindu scripture can call Mohammed's religion demonic since he wasn't even born. Basically it should be written as "Some scholars agree Mohammad's coming in Bhavishya Purana as Mahmad where according to them his religion is described as demonic". Although I think one source is too little for this. Please add more sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Modified it. Please read it and check it properly. Do tell me if you find something wrong. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not wrong, according to could be mentioned once. Author is mentioning multiple observers. I removed some long unsourced and tagged content too. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone thinks that Muhammad might be conflated with Mahmud of Ghazni nor everyone knows who Mahmud was. Correcting it by adding a little information. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your unprotection request for Gautama Buddha[edit]

Hello Bladesmulti,

I just wanted to let you know that I reformatted your request per the instructions at the top of the page; the formatting is requested in order to allow the archiving bot to function with no issues. Also, this is just my two cents reflation your unprotection request: it looks as though per the page's protection history, the page has been actually been semi-protect for 7 years, back when the protection was dropped from full protection to semi-protection. If the page isn't approved to be completely unprotected, it may be wise to see if the protection level can be changed to "pending changes" instead; that way, IPs can still edit the page, but would require a reviewer to review the edit prior to it "becoming live". Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have 'reviewer' right, neither two other regular editors(of that page) have. Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty, you seem perfectly capable of being allowed the pending changes reviewer user right. If you are interested, this link will allow you to request the permission. Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Force of habit from internet groups I used to mod. Yes I meant unblock.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


I know you have a fine nose for SPs: Is this a new editor? Almost every edit gets reverted. He might have changed his strategy to disruptive editing: manipulation of religious statistics, unexplained change of religious demographics, unsourced and surprising change of ..., unexplained. JimRenge (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mobile web edit is something rare, reminded me of Septate. Just revert him, and send some warnings. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Mobile web edit is something rare", but quite common on articles previously edited by Septate (throw-away accounts). JimRenge (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]


See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Should military conflict infoboxes, etc be used for mythical or semi-mythical conflicts?. I don't think the fact that something was in the article when it was written is relevant - if something doesn't belong in the article it doesn't matter how long it was there. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mirza Criticsm[edit]

Dear Brother/sister, namaste and pranaam :) All the six reference I quoted are books from Sunni and Shia scholars of Islam. If you do not agree with their views does not matter post contrary information, but books especially there books can not be called unreliable sources. Also is the offical Ahmadi website, references 2, 7, 24, 30, 35, 37, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,69, 74, 80 in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are all from this website, it is also hence not unreliable to state the Ahmadi point of view. Thank you have a wonderful day Adjutor101 (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Judaism[edit]

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)(For dating to 400-200 BCE see: Flood (1996), p. 86.) is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.(For Śvetāśvatara Upanishad as a systematic philosophy of Shaivism see: Chakravarti 1994 p.9) As explained by Gavin Flood, the text proposes:

... a theology which elevates Rudra to the status of supreme being, the Lord (Sanskrit: Īśa) who is transcendent yet also has cosmological functions, as does Śiva in later traditions.(Flood (1996), p. 153.)

Do let me know what you think. Illuminati6 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What are your proposed changes? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Criminal accusations[edit]

The guidance is at WP:BLPCRIME. If multiple sources of the highest reputation have noted the arrest of a person that we already have an article for, it may be appropriate for a single sentence in the body to state that the arrest has occurred. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will let you know about the articles that have included more than just one sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited this page, but I will see what happens. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in one place?[edit]

I think you are refusing to collaborate on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

How about the sourced text and other reliable sources. What about the article content? QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation on the talk page does not explain your revert. QuackGuru (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC) [27]

Clearly did. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You claim the text is OR but the text is sourced. You also deleted new text and new sources I added without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
OR as in, you give more weight than they deserve. See Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, esp. the 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is the new proposal without the misplaced ref. This article is covered by WP:FRINGE and the sources are reliable. Thank you for commenting on my talk page about pseudoscience. In a way you did invite to the discussion (and the article). QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Please self revert at Aurveda. You have directly violated John's unilateral declaration. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notified John about the ongoing misconduct. See his talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll listen to what I have to say next time? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


I have blocked your account for 48 hours in response to this edit and others which disrupt the editing process there. If you are willing to refrain from making such edits in the future I or any admin may happily reverse the block. This can be accomplished either by pinging me here or by using the {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}. I hope that you will see the error of your ways and continue to observe 0RR there as I think the RfC is the way forward. Best wishes. --John (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:John - I realize that 0rr didn't meant even 1rr. Of course it was my mistake. From next time, I would rather tell you that there is misconduct, instead of going on to handle the situation myself. Of course RFC is the way to go. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Very well, I accept that you did not intend to be disruptive and that you will not continue to edit war. Please review the restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward as you advised another user here several days ago before continuing to edit here. --John (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at New Kadampa Tradition?[edit]

Can you take a look at New Kadampa Tradition?VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 15:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanghao caves[edit]

That's very disappointing. Not only did you add copyvio to Sanghao Caves, it was from a snippet and makes no sense. " The site is also considered to have presented the last interglacial, usually dated to 50,000 – 250,000 years ago."? Even if you'd copied it properly so it read "represented", that still doesn't make a lot of sense. One good reason why you shouldn't use snippets as sources. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Like you have said here[28] that even if it wasn't a copyvio, it still makes no sense. There were numerous changes, like it represents to is also considered to have, dated at from to usually dated to. I would add that there are 2 or more authors who have connected the last interglacial with the geography of the caves, but it may not be notable. I had probably worked for like 1 day on this article, about 10 months ago. That particular sentence seemed to have shared a lot of similarities then, and I forgot but just today I saw that one part of the lead wasn't cited that well. I had also added page link to related pages so that others could probably see. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Snippets shouldn't be used, but like I said that it was done 10 months ago then, I didn't really knew about avoiding snippets. Got to know that 1 or 2 months after. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, I only looked at the article because I saw your edit. I just want you to know that I called your attention to the problems only so that they could be worked on, not to criticize you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably and now after 10 months, the amount of book and web citations about this subject seems to be tripled. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Blades. Just to let you know that I have reported your violation of talk page guidelines to an admin. I have never done such a thing before, as I consider it to be a rather unethical, repulsive underhand thing to do, but I know you wont mind, as you seem to do it all the time;) I just thought it would be nice to let you know that I'd done it, rather than let you find out by stumbling across it by accident. Kind regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually hat the off topic comments but that one(by 216....) was clearly discouraging everyone who has contributed to this page, I thought it is some personal attack, I reported about it to Bbb23,[29] and after a few minutes I saw that Dreadstar hatted it with a nice summary. I guess problem was solved. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly we have very different idea as to what constitutes a personal attack, anyway, I hope you don't get sanctioned for your violation. Kind regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Also I would like to clear one thing, I don't do things underhanded, whenever I email anyone I also notify them on their talk page. It is good for user preference. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you should know that from a victim's point of view, it really feels underhanded, like a dirty trick. I agree that there is no obligation to tell the victim when you report them to admins, but it is behaviour reminiscent of a petulant child who cant get its own way running off to teacher. most unpleasant. Kind regards -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. It helps to explain my attitude towards you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Roxy the dog I'd just like to remind you that many other editors may be watching Bladesmulti's talk page. In my opinion, your comments in this section come across as nasty and border on personally attacking Bladesmulti, all of which do not reflect well on you. Bladesmulti may make mistakes in editing, but in all my exchanges with him/her, s/he has consistently been polite and well-meaning. You might consider having a different attitude toward him/her. Then you might enjoy collaborating more. CorinneSD (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Corinne. At this point, I have only partially reviewed the recent events at Ayurveda and am uninvolved in what's going on there. Roxy, your comments do indeed sound nasty/like a personal attack and do not IMO follow WP:FOC, WP:CIVIL, and I think they're inappropriate. I think Corinne's comment pretty much says it all, I'm just echoing the sentiment and have now said my piece. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blades, it would appear you got away with it. That's fine by me. I de watchlisted this page so didn't see CorinneSD's comment till now. I'm glad your experience with Blades has been a good one. Tyler, Hi stranger, if your interpretation of those policies is as good as your WP:COI interpretation, then ... well ... you know. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
"Stranger"? K, that was a little weird. Anyway, perhaps you want to clarify what you mean about my "COI interpretation" instead of taking passive aggressive swipes? Because, I really have zero idea what you're talking about when it comes to COI. I don't even edit the ayurveda page and do not have a COI and I'm confident my interpretation of it is just fine thank you. It's really best not to make uncivil assertions like that, especially when they're groundless. Regardless of what you think of me (really not my problem), I think much of the community would agree that your characterization of BladesMulti as "underhanded" is a clear demonstration of an uncivil comment and a deviation from focusing on content. It's really a very straightforward interpretation and it's easy to be courteous on Wikipedia if you try. Maybe you should try a little harder. But please, feel free to lash out at me with passive aggressive comments, I'm sure you'll convince the community you're not being uncivil and that you're clearly focusing on content and not editors' personalities or demeanors if you keep that up. When in doubt, I think it's best to keep it to yourself if you don't have anything nice to say about an editor and stick to the content being written. Just some food for thought, I'm not really interested in what you do on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that this seems to be a pattern of yours and I'm sure others have noticed it as well and don't appreciate it, but that's just speculation on my part. I'll let users speak for themselves. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Stranger is a common greeting over here for somebody one hasn't seen for some time, I forget that it might well be a UK specific greeting. Sorry. As for the rest of your comments, thanks, I will give them due consideration. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to User:MonaPisser[edit]

Er… how is that the user's preference? Have they e-mailed you? Did you notice that Ponyo, even as she blocked MonaPisser for "multiple accounts and extensive proxy abuse",[30] stated "I don't believe that the blocked MonaPisser trolling account is related to MehulWB" in the MehulWB SPI? Apparently, Ponyo has reasons of discretion for not being specific about the accounts related to MonaPisser, but, anyway, not MehulWB. See also this conversation on Ponyo's talkpage: "I have no idea who the master is". Bishonen | talk 15:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Bladesmulti, Per my understanding, MonaPisser is unlikely to be related to MehulWB even though both have been socking extensively (see Ponyo's note at SPI, and at Ponyo's talk page). Based on MonaPisser's post-block comments that have since been oversighted, I am pretty confident that the user is related to the IAC sockfarm instead. Just FYI, in the hope that it will help you and others spot and identify future socks, which are inevitable. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (merging sections on same topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC))
(edit conflict) Tunnel vision, Abecedare? (Looking in vain for an upward-pointing arrow.) Bishonen | talk 16:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen by user preference I was referring to the motive of including Monapisser as one of the socks of MehulWB, whether convicted or not but related. Ponyo had to take assistance of DeltaQuad and nothing was written about the about Ponyo's interaction with DeltaQuad on the SPI. You cannot find anything on the talk(page) of Ponyo or DeltaQuad about it.
If you see the statement of Daniel Case, who is probably very experienced in checking unblock requests and oversights, he said that "Two admins with access to checkuser agreed that you're one of Mona's socks."[31] After that I just thought of tagging. Usually, we name sock categories as Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of.., so that meat puppets can be included, as well as the IP addresses. But when the category is Wikipedia sockpuppets of, I guess we can only include those users who have been convicted. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Er..que? Who is the "user" you refer to when you say "user preference"? It's a userpage. It will be assumed that you're talking about the user with the page. Who else is it? Anyway, Daniel Case is an experienced admin, yes, but it seems backwards to take his word in this matter over that of Ponyo, a checkuser who checked both accounts. Never mind, if you insist, leave it there, it's not worth my time arguing about this. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
Was referring to MehulWB, and yes sure. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that Abecedare has removed the incorrect tag from the MonaPisser talk page. There is no evidence directly tying these accounts and the behavioural evidence very much discounts a connection. As a sidenote regarding your comment "Ponyo had to take assistance of DeltaQuad", it wasn't because I wasn't sure about a connection between the two sock groups, it's because Checkusers often ask each other for second opinions regarding cases. I didn't have to ask DeltaQuad to review the MehulWB data, I was just burnt-out after a long day and asked a colleague to take a look at the findings. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for writing, cleared up adequately. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)