User talk:BostonMA

I, Natalinasmpf hereby award you the Exceptional Newcomer award for being amazingly insightful, disinterested in heated arguments and amazing impartiality in a traditional minefield of POV while showing exceptional implementation of Wikipedia policy. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Chit Chat
• Solicitations
• Admonitions
• Discussions with DBachmann
• Natalinasmpf KDRGibby Mattley
• Discussion with 172
• User talk:BostonMA/Disambiguation
• User talk:BostonMA/Appreciation
• Proposals in previous conflicts
• Sai Baba Mediation Related
• User talk:BostonMA/Maomé.jpg in Muhammad

Wikipedia Bill of Rights, etc

First of all, I want to thank you for your comments in various disputes in which I have been involved here recently. I should have responded more quickly, but I wanted to couple my thanks to my response to your request for input on the proposed "Bill of Rights." My response (which has ended up being a full-length, extensive and extensively revised draft proposal) took much longer than I had anticipated to complete. I'm placing the draft on the talk page of the "Bill of Rights"/User prerogatives proposal; I hope you find it useful in continuing/reopening the discussion. If you think another location would be more suitable, please feel free to move it wherever you see fit. Best, Monicasdude 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; it looks like I lost some text cutting and pasting. I think I've fixed it now. Monicasdude 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu

I believe it is an egregious violation of POV. As for your question as to whether you should be participating there, I think you should decide it by yourself, going by your other priorities. I don't want to engage there, because I believe that it is one of the best papers in the world and I read it regularly and hence, I am apprehensive that this bias of mine can colour my views. I have already added this to neutrality-issues on WP:INWNB and I would invite a couple of non-Indian editors who I believe are fair and adhere to a NPOV. I do reserve the right to step in, though ;) --Gurubrahma 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question at Quiz

Well, there is no hurry. You can ask the question any time in next 24 hours. In fact, you can announce that you will ask the question at a particular time.--Dwaipayanc 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is vandalism

That is not vandalism, it is a content dispute, and it will be solved as soon as you present a reliable source to back up the claims you keep re-adding. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is edits which are not made in good faith with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. I showed you the existing references, and I told you that I could provide many more if you had doubts. Among the references I provided are [1][2]. You deleted with the comment "no reliable source added". I can no longer assume that your deletions are in good faith, but are perhaps WP:Point. --BostonMA 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Vandalism is: any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia. Now, the new scientist article was written prior to the event, and is an estimate of who might attend, and Karl Grobl is neither reliable, nor is his reporting on what happened, rather what may happen in the future "By the time the 2001 Kumbh Mela ends on February 21st, approximately 70 million saints, sinners, Sadhus, faith healers, preachers, gurus, charlatans and devotees from across India and the world will have participated in perhaps the single most colossal gathering of humanity since the dawn of time."--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my not quoting the vandalism policy to your liking. Do you seriously doubt the accuracy of the statement or that I can provide reliable sources? If not, then I believe that your changes are "a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia." Please cease. The purpose apparently being WP:Point, perhaps the point being "if you don't jump through the hoops I set up for you, I will delete material I do not doubt is correct." I'm sorry, I don't see such actions as a good faith content dispute. --BostonMA 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, welcome to the club of Editors Who Fight Irishpunktom's Lack of Good Faith Editing (EWFILGFE). ;-) Netscott 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is, there is a difference between vadalism and a Content Dispute! We are having a dispute over the content of an article. It is not vandalism, now, the source you have added quotes figures of 30 and 80 [[Lakh], significantly less than what you are using it as a reference for. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep deleting that it is the largest religious gathering on earth. Do you dispute this? Estimates of the crowd size vary, as estimates in that range necessarily must. If you would like to say that the crowd was estimated to be such and such, that is fine. Or, if you would like to say that estimates of the number of people range from x to y, that is also fine. Deleting the fact that it is the largest religious gather on earth, (according to some, the largest gathering on earth of any type), well that is not fine. That fact is well documented by reputable sources, and deleting it, unless you sincerely believe that it may be in error, is, I'm afraid vandalism. Don't do it. --BostonMA 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• We're about five or six in the club (at least, there are probably others who are silent members). Shall I include you in our roster? LOL! Netscott 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about that, altough it being in bold is against policy, but you kept reverting it back in. You keep adding this figure of seventy million, but that was added as specultion prior to the event. You allowed it to be viewed as tough only hindus were present, despite a cited BBC article reporting on India using the event to attract (non-Hindu) tourists. Your article reports as tough these "70 million" people were all present at the one time, despite each of the articles cited referring to it being an event which lasts over one month. Again, this is a content dispute, and the one not assuming good faith here, really, is you. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not assuming good faith. I came to the conclusion that you were not acting in good faith. If you would like me to assume good faith again, please answer me these questions:

• Do you doubt that this was the largest religious gathering in the world?
• Do you doubt that being the largest religious gathering in the world is a notable fact that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?
• Do you doubt that Wikipedia would be negatively impacted if this information is removed?

As for your other comments, it is not "my" article. It is Wikipedia's article and it was written by many editors, most of them not myself. If you would like to have a genuine discussion about shortcomings that may appear in the article, you are welcome to start such a discussion, although I suggest that you begin in the article talk page and not here in my user talk page. --BostonMA 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevent, the claims you make and revert in, need to be sourced properly. Its not about opinion, its not even about truth, its about verifiabiity. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. An essential difference between vandalism and a simple content dispute is the intent of the editor. --BostonMA 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, assume good faith and deal solely with the issues surrounding the content dispute. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I believe that you understand that it is a fact that Kumbh Mela has been the largest religious gathering in the world. I also believe that you understand that Wikipedia would be harmed by the removal of such facts. Putting these together, I believe that your removal of this fact amounted to vandalism. If you want me to assume good faith, you need to address these issues. You began this thread because I posted several test templates on your talk page. You are now asking me to treat your edits as a simple content dispute. There are undoubtedly genuine content issues worthy of discussion. However, I will not treat your edits solely as a content dispute, because I believe they constituted vandalism. If that bothers you, you may address the concerns I have expressed. --BostonMA 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforce Wiki Policy Equally - Block Woggly

After reading all the facts of this dispute - I really don't understand why Israelbeach has been blocked while Woogly goes on editing after making very clear and transparent personal attacks, legal threats and overall harrasments against Israelbeach.

I would expect that the managment of Wikipedia and its volunteer administrators would have enforced Wikipedia policy equaly for both sides. Wikipedia could have prevented the above lawsuit if it acted properly and swiftly. Maybe there is still time to avoid it.

I have also been a victim of personal attacks by Woggly (being named a "sockpuppet" without any evidence). If anyone here is willing to meet or speak with me - you are most welcome.

Some editors here are playing childish but very harmful games to other's personal and commercial reputations instead of focusing on the real mission of Wikipedia - creating a fine community service. Bluegrasstom 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

It's good to be back. Karmafist 02:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about Indian planet names

I'm editing a section of the word planet in the English Wikipedia and was thinking of adding a brief mention of the Indian names for the planets and their origins. However I am a bit confused. I know there are many languages in India, but do they all use the same Navagraha-based names for the planets? Thank you for your help. Serendipodous 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply; yes that was helpful, but I was also wondering if what they denoted (ie, the gods) was the same, regardless of language, in much the same way that the countries of east Asia use the five Chinese elements to identify the planets, even if their own respective words for them may be different. And would that be true for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the other countries of the Indian subcontinent as well? Serendipodous 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

dab

I see you have also had run-ins. His comments are totally incivil. I even agreed with his edit, but I took issue with the racist garbage spouted on the edit summaries and talk pages (including our "discussion").Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Akshaya Patra

Instead of renaming it, you may want to try a re-direct. It is not wrong to call it an NGO, but somehow it doesn't resemble typical Indian NGOs; let it remain. After some investigations, I have found that there is nothing common between ISKCON and them on paper. However, all the active board members are from ISKCON, Bangalore. --Gurubrahma 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hey! Thanks for your dedication on Counter-Vandalism. However, you recently forgot to sign some of your warnings with your name and time. Please remember to do so, cause it helps users like me using VandalProof or other softwares know when the last warning was issued to the user. Thanks! :) --Deenoe 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's all good =) --Deenoe 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hindu Mathmeticians etc.

Hi! In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an article titled List of Jews that categorises people based on their profession. The same has been done at List of Christians and List of Hindus. In these articles, the focus is to highlight prominent people who are followers of the religion. Hence, a categorisation is required to assert their prominence. The sub listings can be justified per WP:SS. However, it is unnecessary to have such a classification via a cateogry. There are already categories for Hindus as well as for athletes. So a further classification as Hindu atheletes is unwarrented; and if need, can be accessed using the category intersection functions.
And yes, Kerala is a place that surprises me by its beauty even today, despite having lived here all my life. I havent been to Brahmagiri though. Will try to, now that you recommended it. Regards-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay. I have decided not to push in the cfd debate any further, as I'm not interested in sacrificing my integrity, and be branded as a pseudo-secularist by certain users. I do, however, owe you a reply. Listings can become very long like this one. We can make it more compact and readable by creating daughter articles and linking to them from the original article. Something similar to summary style procedure. This is as opposed to a category, which is not in the article namespace, and the content is more or less unencyclopedic when presented as such. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for the advantages of a list over a category.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely fine. But as a last attack, I must, of course remind you...Oh never mind! I keep forgetting my decision to quit this cfd. Cheers and best regards :-) -- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD =

For the record, I am about to propose many "lists of Jews" (and especially "categories of Jews") for deletion. You are welcome to vote to delete them (or propose some more lists for deletion!). These lists and categories have been extremely controversial in the past. Bellbird 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New anon user

Oh, I didn't know that you were online still. You weren't harsh, you were to the point. In fact, you have oodles of patience - I was always impressed by your mediation efforts. Thanks a ton for making WP a better place. Do keep an eye on the user though. --Gurubrahma 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicole

Indef. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri

How about now? User:Leotolstoy

A request

Try not acting patronizing to others. There was no personal attack anywhere on the cfd Christian mathematician, rather someone accusing bad faith whilst not making any effort to read the arguments for the case. ...And Beyond! 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is referring to the user and not the topic, that doesn't make it anywhere close to a personal attack valid of being reminded WP:NPA. ...And Beyond! 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be interpreted as such, but its intention wasn't, and I really can't help if I unconciously offend others. ...And Beyond! 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, right on the afd above that someone did personally attack me:

• Keep - Many Jewish mathematicians, cite Jewishness as one of the inspirations in their studies.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This category is not for those people, it is for anyone who happens to have a Jewish forebearer. Please make your decision so it reflects that. ...And Beyond! 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats more irrelevant are your annoying rants.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it's no big deal; this happens a lot on heated CFD/AFDs. ...And Beyond! 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BostonMA! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...and Beyond

It's OK - I'll do it.--Runcorn 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Message from User:24.31.231.143

I got your messange! And thank you for sending me that Wiki-Mail. But how do you send messages? I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.231.143 (talk • contribs)

1 vs. 100

I don't know how to contact you, BostonMA, but you should let my 1 vs. 100 edit stand. It is correct. I have first-person knowledge of which I write.

I'm curious: What made you think that my edit was bogus? Why did you assume I was wrong, vandalizing, playing in the sandbox, or whatever?

Your removals on AFDs

Please feel free to checkuser me. I have provided my IP address on my user page. Other than that, please do not breech your admin powers (if you have any) and/or wikipedia's standards by removing comments on an AFD made by a banned user. Only possible sockpuppet user comments may be striked out if they are on the same afd/cfd. Thank you. TDL31 01:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, you did. You removed notices by another user that the certain votes were made by a sockpuppet. This sockpuppetry was abusive, because different socks of the same user voted in the same votes. (See WP:Sock). I suspect that you are also User:Antidote. --BostonMA 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Stop personally attacking me as a sock. I have requested you "checkuser" me if you must.
2. Only sockpuppet comments that are ON THE SAME CFD can be crossed-out. You are removing numerous comments where the And Beyond character only commented, and made no "abusive" edits. This is violating WP:Sock and also skewing information on the cfd. Please stop.
3. Notice how I left the "cross outs" on his Boskovic sock. These are not valid, and should be removed or made not of. TDL31 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Boscovic was blocked [3] and then 7 hours later, your account User:TDL31 was created at [4]. You, as User:TDL31 immediately go to work removing the sockpuppet notices for User:Boscovic and User:...And Beyond!. That is good enough evidence for me to strongly suspect that you are a sock. --BostonMA 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Sock defines abusive use of socks to include casting multiple votes on a single issue. You did so, for example at Category:Christian mathematicians here and here --BostonMA 12:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13

You to me: Hi Bhadani, could you semi-protect this page, as well as September 12, and 10. If that is not possible I understand. However, there is a sockpuppet who has voted multiple times, was blocked, and he keeps removing the notices that he is a sockpuppet, by using what I strongly suspect are new sockpuppet accounts. Your help is greatly appreciated. --BostonMA 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My response:These pages are highly visible pages, and no nonsense may continue unnoticed long by others. In case, some one is really a sockpuppet, he/shall gets exposed sooner than later. I think protecting pages would serve no purpose. If some one is removing comments, he shall be treated as a vandal. Please do not worry much. --Bhadani 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann's comments on Indians

I saw on your user page a section as noted above, and also read the relevant "discussion". I think virtual communities like wikipedia exposes many persons' real intent and mentality. They may retract later on fearing the backlash of the community, but they are what they are! Please do not worry - Abraham Lincoln had concluded: you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Either the wiki-community has to get rid of proponents of racialism or the self-respecting wikipedians have to say good bye to wikipedia. The choice is ours, and there is always light after the tunnel. Please do not feel perturbed, and please continue to remain active. Regards. --Bhadani 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Really sad. --Bhadani 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CfDs

Thanks for that. I'm on British time, so it was the middle of the night.--Runcorn 06:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your warning

Howdy! I apologize for any sort of inconvenience that my peers might have made. My username is GofG, and I often edit from school. I have since gotten the teachers to make vandalizing Wikipedia a demerit-worthy offense, and as you can see the vandalism has slowed. I apologize again!68.156.179.102 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

bAd

User:bostanMA , nothing good is going to come out of your comments in his talk page. He will just remove your comments and will claim you were trolling.-Bharatveer 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes i know that story. Best Regards.-Bharatveer 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

(this is in regards to a note in the Items to Negotiate, Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and was moved from that location. --BostonMA 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

have I not, now? I argue that I have shown patience and good faith to the point of ridicule, several times over, and that I am not to blame if I refuse to go through the motions another time each time that any editor feels that I should be made to. Your statement is wrong. I assume that you are not aware it is, but then I do not understand why you should feel called to comment on my behaviour without first researching my behaviour. My comments are not offensive, and I do not have to apologize for their content. I did apologize for any unintended offence they may have caused, more than sufficiently, and I won't do it again. It is very obvious that any editors dragging this up again are not acting in good faith, and I am flattered that they are apparently unable to produce anything less stale as evidence of alleged misbehaviour on my part.

You may read the last iteration of this here. I refuse to address this once every month, anyone interested in this "controversy" can go through the archives and read everything I have to say about it. dab (ᛏ) 07:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User page

I must say, I find Alex Bakharev hit the nail on the head. The issue of dab's unfortunate comment, made in a time of high stress and subsequently interpreted in ways he did not intend, is really yesterday's snow. I suggest we all just let it rest. I do not think that keeping a constant reminder to the episode on your user page was in any way beneficial to our mutual goal of building an encyclopedia. I suggest that you just remove it and be done with it. As has been shown recently, it proves to be a pitfall for people like Bhadani, who stumble upon it and don't know the full history and then get a harsh response, since having an unfortunate remark pointed out even after so much time is unnerving. It's also—whether you intended that or not—a lure to draw out dab to react to it. In my opinion, it's poor style. The time spent on this matter would be invested better in writing decent encyclopedia articles. All the best, Lupo 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo, thank you for your comments. I am quite sure that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, as do many of us. However, as is often the case, although we may hold similar things dear to us, we may see things in differnt lights. I know that dab may be reading this, which makes explaining how I see things somewhat awkward, as this comment is not meant as a personal attack on dab. However, since you are coming to me, and engaging me, I feel I ought to respond with honesty, but with as much gentleness as I am able.

The unresolved issues that I expressed to dab here remain unresolved. Rather than becoming ameliorated over time, these issues have become, in my opinion, more aggrevated. Dab has been a prolific editor, and is very knowledgable. That is his asset to Wikipedia. However, he also has qualities, which in my opinion are very detrimental to his working cooperatively with other editors, and these qualities have been becoming more pronounced.

From your comments, I gather that you believe that the heart of the current conflict is an old comment, an "unfortunate comment" that was made long ago, and is best forgotten. However, from my point of view, this is not the case. The behavior that led to the older conflict is habitual and ongoing. If the most recent unresolved issue with dab that I have recorded is old, this is due to my lack of interest in pursing the matter. At each step, dab has stated that he is unwilling to discuss further, and my instincts told me that raising new grievances would not help the resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, the essential ingredient to all of my later grievences with dab are found in the earlier conflict. Reduced to its bare essentials, in my opinion, dab has difficulty accepting that he may have done something wrong, and has difficulty trying to make amends with those he has alienated.

I offer to you as an example, the recent episode with Bhadani. Bhadani is one of the most forgiving persons I have met on Wikipedia. If dab were to truly show some understanding of the fact that he failed to assume good faith, that his invective toward Bhadani and toward other editors was inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator, if dab truly understood how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly, and attempted to mend his fences, and to change his behavior, then I have not a doubt in my mind that Bhadani would forgive dab his past. Not a doubt.

So, I ask you to consider that there is another side to this story, and that perhaps you may want to, if you care about dab, gently remind him of things such as that he should not be demanding civility as his "right" against others, when he is unwilling to treat those others with civility and dignity. You may wish to remind him that those who are annoyed with him do not constitute a grand conspiracy of ignorant editors. You may wish to remind him that it is unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors when making derogatory comments about their edits.

I am sorry. I had intended to be calm. I should perhaps let this comment sit for a day, for rewriting, but I too grow impatient, and tired of misbehavior, and so, probably with a certain degree of poor judgement, I submit this to you. Thank you again for your interest in doing what is best for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened by your response. All your commentary rests indeed on this one comment of his and the interpretation third parties have attached to it. Dab has clarified repeatedly what the circumstances and his intentions were. If people pop up nearly a year later on his talk page, enraged and unaware of the history and still chide him for that frustrated comment (which is by no means indicative of his usual attitude), it's no wonder they're brushed off courtly. And, I'm sorry to say, you are guilty for this to happen, too: that's what I meant with my statement that your prominent continued mention of this old incident was a pitfall for the unwary.

You also seem to have concluded (despite your stated "lack of interest in pursing the matter") that dab was habitually rude. That, however, may apply only to his reactions in this matter, on his own talk page. (In my opinion, he'd do best not to answer at all.) I perceive your sweeping statement as a gross misrepresentation. In fact, you will find that most of his edits are to articles, and his article talk page comments mostly are about the article subject, and only very rarely about an editor's behaviour. Dab has no patience with the incompetent, and, given his deep knowledge of liguistic topics, it's not always easy to convince him in the rare cases when he makes a factual error. But I have never seen his discourse on article talk pages, brusque as it may be, descend to a personal level. The isolated incident way back is not indicative of his usual discourse. His actions before and since then clearly show that. Your repeated mention that it is "unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors" misses the point completely in this case, as he doesn't do so routinely, as you imply.

The "how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly" can of course also be turned around. Can you imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once many months ago but repeatedly? Furthermore, can you imagine how this must look to someone who's prime reason for contributing here is to write encyclopedia articles? It's no wonder he reacts (maybe overly) harshly when prompted about this for the umpteenth time on his talk page. And again, that it occurs repeatedly is also your doing.

I don't think anything good will come from continuing to keep to this "issue" alive. Most of the involved parties care about the encyclopedia, and will get along reasonably well on technical terms. That's good enough. Insisting further makes it look like some people were just trying to be disruptive on purpose. I don't like disruption; people should write decent encyclopedia articles instead. Hence I ask you again to bury the issue and to remove that section from your user page. Keeping it is doing more harm than good; it's only aggraving a situation that many other people (so I gather from the assorted recent comments) consider a non-issue or at least an issue long closed, and makes it look like you just wanted to prove something. Not investing the time to truly check your premises ("lack of interest in pursing the matter") is outright negligent, and making sweeping diffuse allegiations ("later grievences") is detrimental to the point you're trying to make.

Sincerely, Lupo 08:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you wish to protect Wikipedia and significant contributors from spurious attacks. That is a praiseworthy goal. However, I believe that you misunderstand the facts in this case.

You begin by stating that all my commentary rests on a single comment. That is not so. As I stated before, there is an ongoing issue. I have added a few of the more recent events to my user page for your benefit. However, if you are unconvinced, I suggest you a) research the issue further, b) ask dab for his appraisal, and if you are still unsatisfied, you may come back to me, and I will do my best to clarify things for you.

I agree that leaving an old comment on my user page, rather than more recent comments, provided an opportunity for editors who did not look at dates to get the mistaken impression that the comment was recent. However, this was not my intention. Rather, the comment was posted on my userpage 9 months ago. Dab was notified of it, and in the course of discussion repeatedly expressed that he was not interested in discussing with me, and so the issue remained in the Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and I let the issue lie dormant.

My comment that I did not want to pursue the matter, meant that I was not going to pursue dab and try to engage him in a discussion that he did not want to have. I was not going to post annoying messages on his talk page, I was not going to file an RfC against him, I was not going to poke at him every time he did something I objected to. With one, or possibly two exceptions, over a period of nine months, I left him alone, and made no comments. That does not mean that I didn't notice his behavior.

I have stated that I find dab's reference to national, religious and ethnic attributes of editors objectionable. You argue that "the famous" quote was an isolated incident, and that he doesn't do so "routinely" as "I imply". Again, I ask you to research the matter, or ask dab's appraisal, and if you are unsatisfied, you may come back to me and I will attempt to clarify the matter for you.

You ask if I can imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once, but repeatedly. Of course I can. Although those defending dab's behavior have stated that his comment was an "error", as far as I am aware, he has never stated that his comment was an "error". Further, if dab had wished to avoid having his comment brought up repeatedly, the easiest course of action he could have taken, which would have taken all of maybe two lines, would have been to apologize for any unintended offense that he may have caused. I am sure that would have greatly reduced the occurances where his comments were brought up to him. I warned him long ago that he had harmed his relationship with Indians, and that an apology would be a wise course. However, instead of heading this advice, he attacked the messenger, as you seem to be inclined to do.

Your comment that "not investing the time to truly check your premises ... is outright negligent". I had asked dab recently why he was treating me as a troll. I was therefore thankful that he gave an honest answer, and I have no intention of berating him for explaining why he may have had a bad impression of me. However, for him, it was a conjecture that I had not read the Arbcom case, or the Rajput dispute before coming to him. You however, have turned his conjecture into a fact. If you care to research the matter, you will see that I did do my research prior to bringing the matter up with dab.

Thank you again for your comments. Although I do not agree with them, I think it is important to keep lines of communication open, and to hear what each other has to say. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab

Hi. Sorry if you feel I'm intrusive. I've been watching the discussions around the now famous quote of Dab. Let me tell you what I feel. Dab's presumption that Bhadaniji was a troll is completely unacceptable (howmuchever understandable). However, I stand with him on the other issue that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians. It was intended to be offensive to the person(s) he was referring to not "Indians in general". This I say after initially taking exception to his comment in an RfC and then reading his clarification and his "apology" if people had (understandably) mistakenly associated a "sh*thole" with an "arsehole" (as I did). He has given a link to this instance in his comment on your userpage. After providing that, in my opinion, he's right to refuse to discuss that matter further. What do we expect from a person constantly being asked the same question over and over again based on the same mistaken assumption? I share somewhat similar views as that of Hornplease expressed here and Lupo elsewhere. Please assume good faith on this and let go of this. I'd strongly urge Dab to apologise to Bhadaniji for calling him a troll. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sundar, I assume you have good intentions, so if you are intrusive, I forgive you. However, it does place a burden upon me to explain how our views might differ. You write that you agree with dab that

"that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians."

I am not aware that dab has apologized for unintended offense, or stated that his comments merit such an apology. Perhaps I have overlooked something, or perhaps we have different views regarding what constitutes an apology. What I have been aware of are comments where he expressed that he has nothing to apologize for, that he owes no-one an apology and a intends to give no apologies. If I am mistaken, please point me to the sentence or sentences where he apologizes.

I also disagree that the "famous" comment is offensive only if misunderstood. I do not believe I suffer from a lack of English comprehension, and so I will try to explain to you at least part of why I think the "famous" comment was inappropriate and offensive.

repeating what I once wrote elsewhere:

It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.

Please read this sentence again:

"there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access."

When discussing allegedly "clueless people", is it necessary to mention that there are more "where they came from"? Was it necessary to mention India? "especially in India"?

You write that dab is right to refuse to discuss the matter further. It is dab's choice whether he wishes to discuss with people whom he has offended or not. I am not aware that anyone is demanding that he discuss, or even demanding that he apologize. That is his business, and whatever profit or loss he receives, that is his business. However, his difficulty in discussing matters in a non-accusatory way, his difficulty in listening to others and treating them with respect, these have a negative effect on the community, and make conflict resolution more difficult.

I am glad that you have asked dab to apologize to Bhadani for calling him a troll. Of course I would completely understand if Bhadani felt that this was insufficient. I notice that you did not ask dab to apologize to anyone else. Perhaps that was an oversight on your part, or perhaps you do not believe that the other persons who dab has directly (or indirectly?) insulted are not positive members of the Wikipedia community?

I apologize that my frustration has shown through in this comment. I do not mean to direct it at you, but I must confess that I am frustrated. Sincerely, --BostonMA 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why cetain users like sundar and others are troubling themsleves to justify him. Sundar is saying he got "satisfied" with his "clarification". I will just point out one such clarification.

" no, it appears that Bharatveer has confused "shithole" with "arsehole" (understandable, seeing the fecal association). I do not think that this has anything to do with Indian village culture - Bharatveer 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely ignoring Bharatveer, who seems to have missed the point again, I would like to point out that I dont think dab has to apologise to anyone else. He has explained what his reference was, and nobody who is an established editor on WP should feel in any way personally insulted.

Further, I think your parsing of the famous line is incorrect. "Where they came from" fairly obviously means "out there on the internet", otherwise he would not have had to add especially in India. And it was, obviously, necessary to mention India, given that the context was the Rajput page. Please, let this go. This is precisely the sort of thing that causes non-Indian experts to stop working on India-related pages, and that sort of persecution is something that the encyclopaedia, and its India-related parts in particular, cannot afford.Hornplease 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hornplease, it is normally my practice to respond as best I can (time permitting of course) to comments that have been directed toward me. However, in your comment you say "please let it go". So, I will not respond to any of the points you made, unless you request me to. Thank-you. --BostonMA 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldnt want it to interfere with our primary purpose here, editing. But please, do keep my fears about the ramifications of this sensitivity at the back of your mind. Thanks! Hornplease 05:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, it's my oversight. I'm sorry. I read his statement on your user page saying "I did apologize for any unintended offense ..." along with his clarification quoted below:

I realize for the first time that people have taken "shitholes" to refer to Indians (people). This is obviously a language problem, but I can now understand the outrage. "Shithole" is a colloquial derogatory term for a place, not a person. [5]. I also stress that I never called India a "shithole": the context was a suspicion that extremely aggressive but uneducated redneck editors on Rajput were from remote desert towns that had just got their first internet cafe: A sarcastic statement, but not an attack on Indians or India as a whole, except for the implication that India has shabby towns and uneducated rednecks with internet access (which is obviously just as true of the USA and other countries).

I somehow juxtaposed these too separate comments and decided that he has apologised. Now, I don't know if he did except that he says he did. However, this has not significantly changed my view on him. And, I agree with Hornplease on "especially in India" part since I know the Rajput context in which he made the comment. I feel that it's just different extents to which we assume good faith due to our different levels of agreement with his POV. Anyway, you need not respond to this. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA you have set the truth free. Bhadani has seen the light.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A response

You are mentioned on my talk page

Dear Bhadani, yesterday a message [6] was left on my talk page which mentioned your name, and I responded [7] also mentioning your name. Please let me know if I have said anything inaccurate. (although you need not respond if you do not care to.) I also want to say, that I hope my comment is not read as me offering reconciliation with dbachmann on your behalf. I only wished to point out that my observations of your character, and that in my opinion, you are very forgiving, and if dbachmann were to make an honest effort to reform himself, that your attitude would change accordingly. I apologize for bringing this subject to your attention, while you may prefer peace of mind [8], but since I have written about you, I felt it was my responsibility. Sincerely, --BostonMA 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My response copied from my talk page

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, like most human beings, I too prefer peace of mind but not at the cost of using wikipedia to pour vomits on the national pride of other wikipedians. I do accept that as a wikipedian, I am a member of an international virtual community, but that does not give me right to rough up the national identities of other wikipedians. Moreover, when I touch my heart and apply my mind, I find that that screen name that you are indicating no longer exists for me: for all practical purpose he has gone beyond the realm of my thoughts. Antyesti may not be the correct word to describe such a situation! I am not at all sure!! And, I do not care to think about him any more: there are 2 million other wikipedians with whom I can continue to interact with and work and continue to add value to the Project without bringing into an element of venomous comments oozing out of my nervous debility at any point of time and under any circumstances. Regards. --Bhadani 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Added after reading some comments on your page: I do not expect any apology from a screen name which no longer exists in my thoughts! "It" no longer exists for me! By the way I do not believe in Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. Please remember WP:AGF: I am not implying that any one here conform to being described as Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. --Bhadani 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion

Thanks for the note. I feel a bit bad - didn't want to bite a newbie. I really should have checked. Victoriagirl 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your recent note. I, too, am beginning to wonder whether things aren't quite as they seem - but will assume good faith. Since your post, I've received communication from 572766 [9], to which I've responded [10]. I must say, my sympathy has decreased after investigating the user's first three posts [11], [12], [13]. Victoriagirl 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've again heard from 572766 [14]. As the motivation for the post seems to be an edit you yourself made (one I support fully), I thought you should know. I have already responded.[15] Victoriagirl 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

thanks for your good faith reply. Had you addressed the topic in such a tone from the beginning, my initial reaction would have been much more conciliatory. Since we seem to have established that I do not want to spend more time explaining, and you don't want to spend more time explaining (which is fair enough, but I do not remember ever asking you to do any explaining, or write columns about your opinion of me, in the first place) -- why don't we just drop it? Bhadani has to take responsibility for his own attitude, I am certainly not asking you to talk to him on my behalf. I would just be grateful if you could try and refrain from stirring up unnecessary strife and conflict and just focus on writing articles. If you must keep me "blacklisted" on your userpage, I would prefer that you in all fairness explain the full history of the case (and you will note that many senior editors have recommended you to drop it, to leave me alone, since this is just beating a dead horse and stirring up bad blood for no good reason, as you have indeed succeeded with in Bhadani's case) If we were to clash over a content dispute on some article, I will be very much prepared to listen to your concerns and treat you as a respected contributor. On the other hand, if you or any other editor asked me to enter a debate over disputes and arbitration cases that are long closed and stale, I would again react in precisely the same way: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and I opt to not enter debates that are not directly pertinent to the editing process. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi dab, I have changed my user page in a way that I hope will not present a biased picture of you or of the issue that I have with you. It is in a rough state, but I did not want to "finish" it if there is a possibility that the dispute may be resolved in the near future. I understand that you have another concern occupying your mind right now. I have no intention of harassing you or chasing you down to address my concerns, as I have avoided doing till now. I believe that there have been only two occasions where we crossed paths in the last nine months. I am willing to drop things in that sense. If you want to do your own thing and leave the issues unresolved, I am not going to worry about that (other than to keep my user page up to date, which I had not done previously). However, I am not willing to "drop it" in the sense that I still find your past and present comments highly objectionable, and I still have an issue with them. (If I update my page, I will keep you notified if you like -- let me know one way or the other.) Sincerely, --BostonMA 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. Thank you for your belief that I'd make a good mediator. From your musing, I understand that you don't want to bother Dab at this moment when he's into another issue. I appreciate that, your general amenability, and willingness to listen. Should you require my help for something, feel free to ping me. However, I'm a little hesitant to commit myself into any quasi-formal role as I'm not sure if I'd live upto the expectations because of my yet-to-improve English skills and lack of time. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right to a voice

Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Converting units

Hi Bhadani, I have been working on Kaveri river to get some facts and figures into the article about usage of the river. One of the issues that I face is that the many references use differing units, millions of acre-feet, mega-liters per day, cubic feet per hour etc. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to convert these to a single common unit for the benefit of the reader? Have you come across this issue before? What are your thoughts? --BostonMA 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I too have come across such problems, and sometimes used whatever figures I could get conveniently. However, this guidance is of help: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_districts#Basic_India_conventions --Bhadani 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion *2

U r rite Boston... there is a battle goin on... i am arrogant and don't give up that easily. Here is my gmail address: abhinav.kanaya@gmail.com . I want to discuss the editing of this lady. Plzz write to me soon. As long as she proves that my info on that topic is all irrelevant, i will not back down! ... thnx

                       Abhinav ;-0

Time Format

How do we get IST time in place of UTC(on the edit timestamps)...? Sorry I didn't know where to ask, so I'm posting this here.

Cheers,

Amogh 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tippu and Rockets

Please do.Thanks.Hkelkar 11:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it satisfies WP:Reliable Sources it is fine I think. Also, you might want to put the article in your watchlist and monitor it. I have seen numerous cases of OR and POV that I have marked down, but users with nationalistic biases have been vandalizing it and I can;t keep them all at bay. If you could participate in some of the issues that I have raised on the talk page and monitor the article for vandalism etc then I would be extremely grateful. Please do consider doing so as it would mean a lot to me to have this article achieve a modicum of credibility. Thank you very much.Hkelkar 11:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Some infoboxes have a size column, I dont know how to work it/make it on my temple infobox.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Offset

(moved from User page) Although I have changed the setting here(see image), it still isn't displaying the correct time settings. Thanks anyway.

[img]http://i10.tinypic.com/4htlzb4.jpg[/img]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amogh gulwady (talk • contribs) . at 12:21, 24 September 2006 to user page

Mahawiki

Hi Boston,

In the links you gave me, [16] and [17], please observe carefully. What I described as trolling was not Mahawiki's request to Tipu to calm down. If you observe carefully, in his clever request he has slipped in blatantly inflammatory troll that Karnataka is torturing minorities etc.,. That is what I referred to as trolling. Sarvagnya 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri

I am shocked and flabbergasted that it has been protected!! This is the effect of Mahawiki's slander and misinformation working! This is exactly what I have been crying about for some time now.

You have been an active editor there and you tell me in all honesty, have I ever pushed POV there? I objected to the picture, gave my reasons and after more than one month of not getting any replies I deleted it and also explained my reasons(It was mainly about the "'years' of 'dam induced' drought") Once that was fixed and you wrote about river usage etc., I havent questioned the picture.

As for the other point about Karnataka not releasing water, I have proved with citations that Mahawiki's and DrBruno's claim was factually incorrect. What is Mahawiki's problems still?

As for the events of 2002, I dont have any problem mentioning it, but it should not be worded to sound as if the events of 2002 was/is the norm every year.

Also please remember that this is an article about the river Kaveri and if we keep writing about the dispute to fill pages together the article will lose its focus. Like I said, I've already created a page purely focusing on the dispute and all the details are being mentioned there. I am in the final stages of wrapping it up but this incivility of Mahawiki is holding up my work.

As a seasoned editor on WP, I request you to please let Blnguyen know that his protection of the page is uncalled for. Infact, if you see the most recent edits there is not even a semblence of edit warring there.

Thanks.

btw I will also let Blnguyen know. Sarvagnya 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarvagnya. What I am about to say, I hope will not be an affront to you. When I ask others of their opinions of me, I genuinely wish to know, and so I do not take offence that they are criticizing me -- if I ask for opinion, I am happy to get it. So please do not think I would bring up the following things if you had not asked. When you first began editting here, I was battling one or more anonymous IPs who were removing Tamil script for places in Tamil Nadu. At one point, you removed the Tamil script for Kaveri. You may not be anti-Tamil, and it may not have occured to you that anyone would find your removal an issue. However, it did make me wonder if you had an anti-Tamil agenda as I have seen others have (i.e. vandals).

When you first began editting Wikipedia, you also made some comments that did not leave me with a good feeling. For example, you commented on my user talk page accusing me of lying [18] when in fact, the "diff" that you used to support your claim was a composite of edits by a number of different editors, and the actual history didn't support your claim at all. At the time, I realized that it was conceivable that you simply did not understand how diffs worked. However, I also wondered if you were intentionally trying to smear me. So, from the beginning, we did not get off to a good start. You seem to have grown as an editor since that time, and I definitely take that into account, and I do not hold your past against you.

That being said, I do think that your tone is rather "superlative". You speak of "blatant" lies, being shocked, slander, misinformation etc. In my opinion, using this sort of language may hurt your reputation among other editors. They give the impression that you have a great deal of emotional investment in pursuing your aims. I think that if you Assume Good Faith toward Mahawiki, despite anything that he may have said to you, and in spite of mistakes he may have made in editting, that the level of heat between you will subside.

I hope you will forgive me for speaking plainly. That is what I would want for myself. I do not bear any grudges against you, and I am glad that we have been able to edit collaboratively on a number of articles. Please feel free to share your opinions further, and I will do my best to reply. Sincerely, --BostonMA 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for and admire your forthrightness it telling it like it is. Yes, I do remember that we didnt get off to a good start. And to this day, though I blundered in targeting you, I certainly feel that one of the intervening editors/edits(between mine and yours) was responsible. Be that as it may, to me it is a closed chapter. But what I learnt from that episode was not to involve myself emotionally with anything or anybody on WP. And I have tried my best to follow that. In the case of Belgaum, i ran the risk of deviating from that mindset and I should admit, I also did deviate a bit. But I realised it soon and came back on track.

Ever since my run in with you, I have also zealously tried to discuss things on the talk page before I make edits to the article. I also try to check other articles to see if there are any precedents in making similar edits anywhere. In the case of the tamil transliteration for Kaveri, I did check the article page of few other rivers and infact, found that there were no transliterations at all. However in Kaveri somebody had already added both transliterations. Since Kaveri flows through 3 states and a union territory and because one of its tributaries originates in Kerala, I reasoned that we would have to add all transliterations. On second thoughts I felt that would end up making it messy and decided to go with just Kannada if nobody objected. Unconsciously, I was trying to set a precedent where I thought none existed. But once it was challenged and Sundar showed me a precedent, I gave in without any protest.

And also, please note that I have used words like slander, misinformation etc., only in the case of Mahawiki because that is exactly what he is doing. What else would you call it, if someone keeps crying of Vandalism on every single page he visits or edits. Just go to Mahawiki's contribs page and do a control-F for the word "Vandal" or "Vandalism" and you will find dozens of instances in the edit summaries itself!! If you were to dig into his actual posts, there is no count of the number of times he has accused me and dinesh of Vandalism. Please ask him to cite even one single instance of vandalism by either me or dinesh. His other favourite term is 'Kannadisation' which again he keeps using like nobody's business.

Of course, everytime he is confronted by somebody to explain his incivility, he runs back to the Belgaum talk page. Even on the Belgaum talk page, while I agree that there was incivility on both sides, I can assure you that I wasnt incivil in the least bit once Aksi entered the picture and more so after User:Amerique entered the picture. However, with Mahawiki, their presence made no difference to his attitudes. He continued to be incivil even after his own advocate had started mediating!! It was then(almost a month ago I suppose) that I abruptly withdrew from the debate and havent ever gone back to the Belgaum talk page yet.

And other than this, another classic case of Mahawiki's misinformation and attempt to mislead is in the case of transliterations. It is certainly true that I have opposed the use of Devanagari transliterations on the Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana pages apart from the Belgaum page of course. However the reason for my opposition on the VM and JGM pages on the one hand and on Belgaum page on the other hand are totally disconnected and have nothing to do with each other. I have explained my reasons for opposing the nagari tr., on the VM and JGM(and even Sare Jahan se achcha for the matter) pages on the respective talk pages. And infact, both user:Ragib and User:Sameerkhan were in agreement with me. Later as the discussion progressed, a consensus was reached there in support of the nagari transliterations and I have not in the least opposed it. But Mahawiki, very conveniently takes my opposition to nagari tr., on radically different articles and stitches them together and talks about it on all pages which have nothing to do with those articles. This is what I see as a mischievous attempt to mislead people.

Even since yesterday, I am trying to insist that we focus only on incivility and not on content disputes, but all that Mahawiki can do in defence of his incivility is to cite from random content disputes from a dozen different articles!! Disagreements about the content of some article can never be used as an excuse for incivility! I am certainly not averse to discussing content issues, but I will not and cannot discuss content issues with incivil people.

And even with content disputes, what is it that he really contests on the pages he cites? Even on the Kaveri page, did he have a single citation of his own to provide? Did he even have a single assertion of his own to make? All that he was doing there was nothing but trying to inflame the atmosphere. I am sure you would have noticed that. His concern about Rashtrakuta, Rajkumar, Chalukya, Vijayanagar empire etc., is even more bogus. Go and check the talk pages of those articles and on many you will find that he has not made even a single constructive edit on the talk page!! If he has any problems with the article, he should take it up on the talk page of the article. Why is he talking about it everywhere else except on the talk pages of the articles?! I know we must AGF, but I am of the firm opinion that Aing GF in such cases, will only render WP much poorer.

And once again, like I said, content disputes and incivility shouldnt mix. Incivility, especially when it is as frequent and routine as in Mahawiki's case is inexcusable. Of course, everyone is human and it is human to lose your temper sometimes, but you cant make a habit out of it and expect to get away with it!! I have just given examples of his incivility in the last 15 days, if I go back a month or so, his incivility could fill a whole page!

Thanks once again, for your frank opinions and hope you continue to give me your opinions on issues from time to time.

Sarvagnya 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism:Saw your comments on Mahawiki's page. Just would like to add a bit. As far as his wanton usage of the term 'Vandalism' or even 'Kannadi Vandalism' goes, even Admin:Blnguyen, took note of it and adviced/warned him against it. Even since that, there has been no change in his deliberate and gratuitious use of the term. Apart from vandalism, both he and Arya have in extremely bad taste rechristened Dinesh Kannambadi as 'kannadibadi' in all their posts. Just go to their talk pages and do a control-F for 'kannadibadi'(sic) and you will see. They have even referred to him like that on talk pages of articles(if I am not mistaken). Then ofcourse, we have the long standing 'Kannadi' issue, which he still argues(see Bhadani's talk page) about, but none of the other editors are happy with his explanations. Sarvagnya 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarvagnya. I very much appreciate your comments above. I have left a note on Mahawiki's talk page regarding the use of the term vandalism.

I am about to take some rest, so I cannot acknowledge all the points you have discussed at the moment. There is one thing, however, that I would like to explore. Let us assume that Mahawiki has been behaving inappropriately. I know it is natural to be annoyed by inappropriate behavior. But it also sometimes best to just calmly make a note of the behavior, and then let the issue lie dormant. I guess what I am wondering is why be so eager to have admins crack down on incivility by Mahawiki? Why not just archive his comments, together with a note of your own view of the facts, and then just leave it at that for now? What would you lose by letting another editor's incivility just drop away from you? I am very tired, so I will not continue. But I look forward to hearing from you again. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Boston, I can assure you that I did infact, make a conscious attempt to ignore his incivility. But to my dismay, I saw that his incivility was only growing with each passing day. That both Admin:Blnguyen and Admin:Sundar were indisposed in my view, only encouraged him to start trying to stretch his luck. With each passing day, his incivility was becoming more and more brazen. Emboldened by the fact that he wasnt being pulled up for civility, he started blatantly indulging in frivoulous edit wars - like the one in the Kaveri page. Apart from Kaveri, he and Arya have blatantly even removed {[fact}} tags that I had added in a couple of articles without any explanations whatsoever. And as for me being eager that admins crack a whip on him, it is not like that. All I want is the knowledge that there are admins keeping a tab on his behaviour. It is not like I want him permanently or even temporarily blocked. All I want is an immediate end to his vitriol and an assurance from an admin that he wont slip back to his incivil ways and if he does, they will take the necessary action to bring him to book. This is all that I care for.

And as I had predicted, he has inevitably run back to the Belgaum issue. That was probably two months ago and like I said there was incivility on both sides. Most importantly, admins pulled up everyone involved, warned everyone for that and when Mahawiki tried to resist, Blnguyen blocked him. That issue has been dealt with and is a dead issue(as far as the question of incivility is concerned, though not the 'content issue' which has been lying dormant). Sarvagnya 06:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for removing that nonsense from my talk page. Much appreciated.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 04:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri article

If u wish me to discontinue at Kaveri,I will.I used the word Kannadi vandalism because another kannadi fanatic had used 'Martty vandalism'.If u want to get the premise of my and sarvagnya's dispute plz see Belgaon page.Sarvagnya is teklling a lie when he says I was being incivil after mediators arrived.I gave my citations and mediators gave a decision in my favour.They agreed for Marathi transliteration!He did a disappering act after that!This hurt Sarvagnya's ego and after the incident he is busy wooing eveyone to block me!In fact he has problems with all language transliterations!Ne it on Kaveri, Belgaon, VM or JNM.

Anyways I leave Kaveri article but make sure u dont allow pushing of POV like this.Note that I havent added a single sentence I had just reverted Sarvagnya's adverbs about Karntaka's stand.I hope u will take care of Kaveri article.Plz leave a reply at my page. Mahawiki 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

sarvagnya

Hi, I didnt knew u have started advocating for sarvagnya?Good for u! BTW the concept of good faith/bad faith edits exists in wikipedia right?Mahawiki 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mahawiki. You are correct, there is a difference between good faith and bad faith edits. Bad faith edits are vandalism. In some cases, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the editor had no intention of making a useful contribution. In other cases, it is not completely clear that an edit is made in bad faith. In those cases, it is Wikipedia policy to Assume Good Faith, that is, we give the editor the benefit of the doubt. This may be bad idea. You may not agree with it, but it is Wikipedia policy.

I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further. --BostonMA 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri Pic

Just FYI : [19]. You're welcome to comment. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri Disputes article

Hi, After a long time, I have completed the Kaveri_River_Water_Dispute article in some shape and form. Most importantly, I've added some refs. Can you please take a look at the article and let me know if there are any glaring POV or anything that has the potential to be seen as POV. If you find anything, please let me know and I will add refs. Also the refs I've already added need some cleanup. Can you help me with this. I only know to add refs the 'plain vanilla' way. Also, while I've added refs for most of the controversial or potentially controversial portions, some parts of the article is still unreferenced. I will add it in due course. For all the above reasons, I've still left the underconstruction tag on. Once I get feedback from you, I'll remove it. I'll also make this request to few other editors, so that we minimise any risk of edit warring on that article. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In The Skin Of A Lion * 3

HEYYY BOstonn.. check it out now.... tell me if if i am improving.. thnx

572766 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad clarification

Yeah, I re-read what I wrote and realized that what I wrote could be taken in so many horrible ways, none of which I intended. There's definitely a reason that Muslim contributors might find the use of the "Western" A.D. on an article on their most revered prophet, and I think that was relevant to the discussion, but there were clearly non-Muslim participants in the discussion who also preferred C.E. I realized that what I wrote might be seen to imply some sort of nefarious motives on the part of our Muslim contributors, which was far from my intention. Captainktainer * Talk 05:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri River

OK. --Bhadani 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

Yeah, that's one of the things Mattisse's sockpuppets do: duplicate an article and then change it. Like take a biography and repost it with the first name changed. Or take a musician and rewrite the article under another name as if they were a wrestler. Weird stuff like that. Probably better to bring it up on WP:AN/I rather than do a formal report, she gets belligerent. —Hanuman Das 04:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

take the next q

Hi, Plz take the next question... --hydkat 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice board

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=79439633&oldid=79439353 --Bhadani 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian admin noticeboard

I have listed it on the Indian deletion sorting page. I would like all editors to comment on it, not just administrators. Please comment whether you feel there is a need for it or not. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed deletion

Please understand, I mean this in the most respectful way, and don't mean to pick a fight. But how can you remove a picture of Mohammed from his article because "it might be considered offensive", but then have this userbox on your main page:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

-Patstuart 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank your for your comment. I do not believe in removing subject matter merely because it is offensive to some. However, I fail to see how an image of Mohammed, regarding which image we know almost nothing, contributes to the article. In fact, it may very well be misleading, in that if this is one of the few images that can be produced by Muslims, including it in the article may give an erroneous impression regarding how common such images are. Be that as it may, I don't believe in being offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. What is the purpose of the image? It is hard for me not to wonder whether the purpose is really to serve Wikipedia. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for writing back. It does clear things up, though I do disagree. I find it awfully convenient that Mohammed has no pictures of him to enhance the article, whereas other religious/historical figures of unknown characature do have them. An image, even if it's historically not accurate, is often a way to visualize a historical or religious figure. Take my count on the following articles; we know what none of these people look like:

• Jesus - 11
• Plato - 3
• Apostle Paul - 6
• Moses - 5, but 2 with his face
• Abraham - 1
• Confucius - 3

I hope, then, you can understand my frustration, as I feel Wikipedia is being censured. Does have a picture on penis really help either (who doesn't know what they look like?). But if it were removed, it would immediately be called censorship. Please understand I am not attacking you, I am just a little frustrated, as I think there's a double standard. -Patstuart 00:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is yours

This user was the winner of Round 12 of the India Quiz.

Congrats! :-D -- Longhairandabeard 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(text here is to fix formatting of following section)

Khaskheli page

The 213.42.21.75 has again vandalized this page after you gave him last warning. Siddiqui 06:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PINQ

Hi, thanks for asking me to inaugurate the next round. I was very tied up this week and couldn't do it. Thanks once again for the nice gesture, --Gurubrahma 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Khaskheli page

I wrote that page so I feel obligated to defend it from vandalism. Thanks. Siddiqui 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Peace of mind

Hi Bhadani, I notice that your recent edits seem to indicate some distress. I wish for your peace of mind. BostonMA on 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you. It is not distress. It is sadness that despite a lot of collective efforts, we are unable to deliver the results. Anyway, man proposes and God disposes! --Bhadani 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Navaratri in Chennai was fine. Now Diwali is coming. Happy Diwali. --Bhadani 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam in India

The most recent census of India was performed in 2001 Indian Census - Muslims. According to it's results Muslim constituted 138,188,240 or 13.4% of the population in 2001. The figures in Islam by country are incorrect and they quote unreliable sources and webpages. My changes to that page has been reverted many times. Most people quote India's state Uttar Pradesh percentage where Muslim constitute 18.5% of the population. According to Demographics of India, India's population is 1.125 billion in 2006 [20], so 13.4% would be 150,321,200. While Pakistan population of 165,800,000 million in 2006 is 97% Muslim and is 160,826,000. Please provide reliable references to back your figures. Siddiqui 14:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad pics

Sure, always open for discussion. Best, The Hungry Hun 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you're right: I agreed to discuss the topic, yet didn't deliver any input so far, not even as an answer to the questions you raised - sorry for that, I simply lacked the time so far and could only take quick glances at the article & re-insert the pic when deleted.

Tomorrow, I'll have much more spare time and cover my points extensively; I believe that you can see from the article's talk page that I'm not afraid of lengthy discussions (a good part of it is already archived, though).

However, I beg to differ on the modus operandi: There was a somewhat stable article version with pictures. Plus, not a single objection has been raised in the last weeks beyond a general rejection of images in general. Hence I'll regard further deletions still as vandalism and will revert them. Please understand this approach of mine.

I propose having the discussion entirely on my talk page for the sake of a coherent thread. If you agree, I kindly suggest that put the page on your watchlist.

Best, The Hungry Hun 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally concur with the Hun. I'll see how the discussion develops but like he says, there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies, why the image should be removed, other than a general iconoclasm based on a particular interpretation of a religion not shared by the majority of WP users. I believe removal would be outrageous- the image is souced and is a historical relic (made by, it should be noted, Muslims). Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam objects to images of all of its prophets, are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From your latest message, I am not sure our views are at all reconcilable. In my opinion the image is neither offensive nor obscene; it was created by people who revered and honored Muhammad. The only reason it is "offensive" is because there are some people who object to all images of Muhammad, and by extension images of religious figures in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no contradiction between including the image and the policy you cite. My interpretation is that image must be both subjectively and objectively offensive and this falls far short of that standard. You also seem to maintain that while these images should not be included in the Muhammad article, they might be appropriate for a separate article on images of Muhammad. I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Units in Kaveri River article

Hi Boston, Thanks for the note. Good that you brought it up. Shall we continue the discussion in article's talk page itself? Let me move the current discussion to the article's talk page. Thank you. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I's so sawwy massa! I's neva' goin' ta vanduhlize agin suh!

Re [21]

An explanation of what happened on User talk:216.168.125.177:

1. 216.168.125.177 removed his warnings [22]

2. DVD R W restored the warnings, and issued a block notice [23]

3. You restored the revision which contained the warnings, but not the block notice. [24]

4. I reverted to restore the block notice [25]

Looking at the logs for 216.168.125.177's talk page, it doesn't appear that any revisions were deleted (unless they were removed with oversight privileges, which seems unlikely.) It's nothing to worry about, though. I've had to roll back my own edits occasionally, when they don't produce the desired diffs. John254 02:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Rollback

=P it happens--Konst.able 12:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for work on India articles

Thank you so much for your message. I don't mind at all if you correct my mistakes, as I am constatnly confused by many things in the India articles, only one of which is the multiple spellings of place names. (I understand why this situation exists but not how to deal with it.) In fact, if I could ask you questions now and then, I would be appreciative. I have several confused spelling situations going on right now. Maybe I could ask you what to do about them without getting into trouble -- which happened the last time I suggested a merge in a confused spelling situation.

Is there a standard way of naming places? I just noticed that Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary has been redirected to Muthanga. Maybe that is a nearby place. I wanted to write more about the sanctuary but I wish it were called by its real name, not Muthanga.

Other issues, like what to capitalize is unclear because links won't work unless the capitalization is consistent -- District vs district, Temple vs temple, River vs river etc. Often a district's headquarters is the same name as the district. Sometimes I can't tell whether the reference is to the city or the district.

Anyway, thanks again and any suggestions and explanations from you would be hugely appreciated. Mattisse(talk) 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the searching tips! I didn't know about most of them. Another question: Is Wayanad District a rather neglected area, information-wise? I have been searching for info on hydroelectric projects and rivers there and can't find out hardly anything -- even though rivers and everything else in Kerala is generally well covered. I can't even figure out what river the Banasura Sagar Dam is on. Maybe the Kabrini. Mattisse(talk) 14:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That greatly helps about the river. I understand your feelings about places becoming popularized. (It has happened to me in three different wonderful places on this earth, places I cannot even go back and visit as it is too painful now.) I'm hoping my small little articles will not have such impact. Mattisse(talk) 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be O.K. for me to put the elephant picture on the Kalpetta article, since you took the picture on the way to Kalpetta? Mattisse(talk) 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad pic

Hi BostonMA, hv gone through the arguments and discussions on the talk page of BrianGotts. My first feeling after reading it was that "I wouldn't have any objection to the image being placed on Depictions of Muhammad, just as I have no objection to Piss Christ or Ecce Homo being placed in the relevant articles, and not that of Jesus." I later read the discussion on Hun's talkpage and found that your position is also the same. Also, I believe you have done everything in your power and control to keep the duscussion going, and to take the issue towards resolution. You have answered all the questions put to you clearly, despite receiving only ambiguous answers from the other side. Based on my understanding of the discussion, I fully support your position; however, I do not know about the intensity and frequency of the reversions. Not withstanding that, I'd still feel that you've done what it takes and quoted the appropriate sections of appropriate guidelines to take the discussion further. You've been calm and civil. That's all that matters. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Elephant picture

I wish you would promote your own pictures, at least to me, as I have a hard time finding relevant pictures of India on Wiki Commons, usually only finding them by accident! As for the elephant picture, I can label it as "Countryside near Kalpetta" or something similar, as long as you do not think it would give a false impression. Mattisse(talk) 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the elephant picture to Kalpetta and unexpectedly found a street scene photo to add also. See what you think, and if you think it represents Kalpetta. Feel free to change or adjust as you see fit. Mattisse(talk) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning removal

No problem. — Deckiller 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how I can make the bot avoid a warn there... prob the best course of actions it tag it for a speedy, the bot won't revert and it'll be nuked pretty fast -- Tawker 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

A Mediation Barnstar A Barnstar awarded by Striver on 17 October 2006 to BostonMA for keeping his cool and staying on topic during a tough mediation on the Muhammad article talk page regarding the use of pictures on that article. Impressive and inspiring!

PS: I love your "Industrial Sabotage of Wikipedia?" section on the user page! --Striver 06:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure :) --Striver 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maome

I think you are doing quite well without my help. But if you get stuck at any point, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston: I'm very cross at you! This dispute resolution you requested ---with my name on it--- is not what you represented. This dispute resolution process should focus on any and all images of Muhowmud, not just the 'Maome' image you mentioned in your request. I suggest (demand!) that you edit the request to include the real issue here: the real issue is that some of us think images of Mohowmud should be included in the Article and others think no imges should be allowed. Before I accuse you of engaging in subterfuge or clever, sly manipulativeness, please respond to this grievous afront to our intelligence and good faith.DocEss 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: using Redirects

Hesitant to rely on redirects as I know Admin (especially) and others hate them and think they cause confusion. One Admin told me there are 2 million useless redirect pages someone is going to have to clean up some day. There is also (or was) an anti-piping crusade going on for similar reasons i.e. confusion and complication. Mattisse(talk) 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Repeatedly removing sourced materials without consensus, as you have done in the Muhammad article, is tantamount to vandalism. I refer you also to this discussion. Your edits in Muhammad seem to be in sharp contrast to the principals you yourself assert therein.

I have engaged in no personal attacks on you. Calling an editor's edit what it is is not violative of NPA, as it is the action, not you, that is being called into question. Moreover, I find your attitude perplexing, in light of the fact that you devote a considerable portion of your own user page to an extended attack on another user, disguised as an attempt at diplomacy.

Please immediately cease your harrasment of me on my user page. Thank you. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus image in the article from August 2005 until the recent conflict. The image was changed without consensus, and repeatedly insisting that you have consensus does not make it so. Whether the personal attack was directed at me or not is irrelevant. Improper accusations of vandalism are disruptive to Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your perplexity, statements such as "It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them." are not civil. Therefore, I have an issue with the editor who made them. However, when another editor deletes an image that was inserted without consensus, and which does not have consensus, that is not vandalism. I hope that helps to clarify your perplexity. --BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your position is clear to me. I still regard it as inconsistent and flexible to suit your needs of the moment. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not say there was consensus for keeping it. I said there was no consensus for removing it, and no one has yet articulated a reason consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy why it should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly "remove the one image but leave the other 'clearly relevant' one" becomes "let's remove all the images". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not call for removing both images, but was willing to give support to the compromise proposal made by User:HighInBC. However, you will note that I encouraged User:HighInBC not to remove the other images [26]. --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't at any point say that YOU called for removing both images, but this campaign has emboldened those who would like to censor Wikipedia in its entirety and they have begun to move far beyond what minimum accomodation you intended to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!

I appreciate the Barnstar and also your concern. I do know that it is improper to throw around sockpuppet accusations with using CheckUser first. Mattisse(talk) 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm beyond understanding such links right now.

But it is true researching the various water projects, I have come across all sorts of strange things about water controversies and companies that come up with complicated "water projects" involving several states, rivers. dams, canals and power transfer od water.

In fact I wrote an article originally aimed at temple tanks, entitled Irrigation tank -- don't like the name but couldn't think of anything else. But the article quickly became more complicated as I saw the ancient water conserving methods contrasted with today's high-tech methods amd people/states caught in the middle.

Take a look at the article, if you wouldn't mind. I keep finding unconnected articles on water projects but all the pieces are not being put together. Maybe you know what is happening and can help out or guide me in the right direction. Truthfully, I'm still at the level of trying to get the rivers straight and figuring out what basins they flow into.

It's fascinating. Mattisse(talk) 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Its true, and it was my own stupid fault. I'm hoping this mediation will resolve the issue. Thanks for your concern though --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You were worried

Wikipedia Administers noticeboard/Incident#Puppetmaster Mattise repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag

Please read the actual incident so you will see that that I had done nothing wrong. There is no rule that you can't change your own user page.

What makes me feel the worst about the whole thing is that you had so little faith in me that you thought I was in danger. Mattisse(talk) 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you have it in the comments from the person who made the mistake below. He is referring to a comment I made in another section, namely:

When my user page was reverted: User:Mattisse‎; 18:53 . . contribs) (Revert to revision 73364465 dated 2006-09-02 07:33:12 by Netsnipe using popups) it was reverted to a point before the sockpuppet label was put on again, revealing personal information that I don't wish to be available for personal reasons and that I had removed long ago. So now I can't remove my own personal information that User:Ekajati chose to reveal. I was told that it was an administrator that was doing it (which I did not think an administrator would do without due process) so I did not believe that part. Nonetheless, what I want private is now there against my will and there is nothing I can do about it.

The comments from the guy who made the mistake are below on your page and refer to this statement which, apparently in his eyes, is a sin. Either you read the actual comments and believe what was said on the link I sent you, in which was the ultimate conclusion was that my user page was left to me to do with it what I want), or you believe the guy who admitted he made a mistake. No one likes to admit he made a mistake (although he does in that link I gave you - and also on my talk page to me). In any case, I get the drift of this now. I thank you for being the friend you were before. And I don't hold it against you for believing your friend and sticking by him. I do think you meant well. Mattisse(talk) 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding -- it truly helps me think good about people again. No I didn't really think I was in danger. First, I wasn't doing anything against any rules. Second, the driving forces in the beginning were not administrators. In fact, those same people had been told to back off recently by adminstrators. Third, what awful thing could happen to me? The worse outcome was what happened -- that two non- administrators got into an edit war over my personal user page, and an administrator got sucked into it and did exactly the wrong thing - as was pointed out in the link I sent you. Now he may have done that out of sheer misunderstanding (which is what he states in the link I sent you) or he may have been sucked into this clique that insists that Timmy12 and I are the same person and have done so multiple times (I now know from looking at his page). I didn't know about the User:Timmy12 thing until yesterday and I was truly horrified.

I've been attacked so many times by this particular clique of persons who want to "own" certain articles, that I am (almost) used to it. Plus there are experienced administrators who have seen me through many of these episodes and will tactfully do the right thing in the end (I believe). Plus, if it means I have to sell my soul to these people and obey their unethical edicts amd back off and overlook the bad things they are doing to Wikipedia, then I will not do that and I will accept the consequences. My nature is such that I am driven to keep the standards of Wikipedia high.

My fault is that I am too blunt and don't have enough patience with the "bowing and scraping" that is required to get along with some of these people. There is some middle road there that I must work on in my own behavior. But in reality, there is nothing they can do to me, except freak me out emotionally -- which they have succeeded in doing previously but I am working on that side of myself now. Compared to previous times, I handled this latest attack well, so maybe I can believe I am improving. It has been a struggle.

Thanks for letting me express all this. I had decided to desert India entirely, but it would be a loss to me. I have been interested in other areas before and can find another area if necessry. There are some really bad people in the India area, unfortunately, along with mostly good, wonderful people. Mattisse(talk) 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Advice for a friend

Honestly, I think Mattisse quite enjoyed the situation. He (i'm assuming here) started to talk to other people, just trying to attract attention to the whole situation when he himself said he reverted the edits because he had some private information on his user page. You basically summed up my motive behind protecting the user page. You can see by the protection comment I made, that I had only good intentions, and that I did not want someone to see Cyde's comments and immediately act upon it. Also, Cyde is probably one of the higher up admins, and I would assume he has a good deal of experience and seniority here. Nishkid64 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is true. Things could have been much worse had I not intervened. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by "honest opinion" on your response, so I just told you what I thought of your comment. Nishkid64 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

About fire

You are right. Looking at the comments of User talk:Nishkid64 referenced in you last message to me on his discussion page [27], he says I have been enjoying the situation talking to other people. That must mean you, as the only other message I have sent regarding this was to another admin. Since you are definitely right that admins are like fire, lets not talk about this again. And thanks again so very much for being there. I truly appreciate it. Mattisse(talk) 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link!

rainwaterharvesing.org - I have never come across that particular page before and it is very useful. Also, their point of view is nice -- Any land anywhere can be used to harvest rainwater The fundamental reason: extend the fruits of the monsoon The basic principle: Catch water where it falls

I was starting to understand this as an ancient tradition of India in writing the Irrigation tank article (hate that name for it). Someone promised me a photo of a temple tank for it. Mattisse(talk) 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Same to you!

Wish you and your family a very happy diwali too. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy diwali to you too. Have a blast! Idleguy 13:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I added of photo of yours (Image:NearNannilam.jpg) to Distributary plus an explanation. Hope the explanation is correct. Feel to change or remove anything you want. Mattisse(talk) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

THanks

Happy Diwali to you too--Seadog.M.S 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali and prosperous New Year! Rama's arrow 14:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

Hello BostonMA,
I wish you a very happy Diwali! May you enjoy yourself on this day commemorating good over evil. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 14:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The lighted path

I thank you for your greetings. I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 15:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wishing you a shubh Diwali, and a great time ahead on wikipedia! deeptrivia (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy Diwali to you and your family too! Nishkid64 17:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I like making templates when I need to tell a certain amount of people the same thing, is there a correct way to do it. Let me know on my talk--Seadog.M.S 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to BostonMA for tolerance, reasonableness and a commitment to WP:NPOV and dispute resolution that I envy and admire.

Wow! Good call on the talk page of that article! I've still nominated it for AfD, but I have reviewed my position on it quite considerably and am doing so for advice, not to make a point.

I'm very impressed with your WP:NPOV thinking, even if I don't agree with your final decisions, and I'm very impressed with your ability to immediately diffuse an edit war. I haven't looked at your contribs or the like, (and you may already be an admin) but would you consider being nominated for adminship? It seems from your temprement and ability that you are what Wikipedia needs and that you could use the tools. Let me know if you're interested/if I'm too late/too early/other.

Thanks... I've been a bit down on Wikipedia of late: you've helped pick me up! I'm off to bed now, somewhat happier! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)