User talk:Bharatveer

Welcome!

Archive 1: February 2006 - May 2006 ; Archive2 : June 2006 - July 2006 ; Archive3 : Aug 1st,2006 - Aug 9th,2006 ; Archive4 : Aug 10th 2006 - Aug 31st 2006; Archive5 : Sept 1st 2006 - Sept 12th 2006; Archive6 : Sept 13th -Nov 6th; Archive7 : Nov 7th - Dec 4th; Archive8 : Dec 5th 2006 - 21st October 2007; Archive9 :Till Feb 29th 2008; Archive10 :Till April 15th 2008; Archive11 :Till June 20th 2008; Archive12 :Till August 5th 2008; Archive13:Till October 20th 2008;

---

Hmmm...Isn't it a bit strange, that an IP from UK only edits the article on Binayak Sen and nothing else. I guess something fishy over here. Shovon (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Religious violence in Orissa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Bharatveer. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Religious violence in Orissa

Just letting you know that you have already crossed 3RR for Religious violence in Orissa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User tinu, Please stop making senseless allegation. You know very well that I have not committed 3RR. See edit_diff@10:12 (This "revert" (related to sister's alleged rape) was for undoing removal of a "cited" source. See edit_diff@10:47.This revert was for undoing your senseless deletion of a cited source. As these two reverts were for two different sources, I dont understand how I committed 3RR. Please explain .-Bharatveer (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you need to re-read WP:3RR. It doesn't just apply to reverting the same edit. In fact there are only a few exceptions. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Binayak Sen

Hi, I have requested an Admin to have a look and provide a third party opinion on the article. Please wait till we get the feedback. Till such time kindly do not revert any edits and let the IPs have a run as per their wish. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Binayak Sen

It is not at all clear that the edits you are repeatedly reverting on Binayak Sen are vandalism, rather they appear to be incongruent with your POV. I observe you in violation of WP:3RR. Please seek consensus before further reversion. Toddst1 (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The following was continued on my talk page. I am moving it here as it is much more relevant:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Binayak Sen

So according to you, removal of cited sources, completely un-balanced views ( violating basic principle of NPOV, SPA edits are not vandalistic edits.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I observe the edits you are making on that article to be a mix of removing cited sources and adding other cited content. Looks like a classic content dispute to me. Toddst1 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just content. Did you see how "unbalanced" it was. That article was supposed to be a "biography". Any comments on that.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While the article has some issues, it does meet the qualification of a biography. Try working with your peers, rather than trying to WP:OWN the article. Toddst1 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:toddst, Regarding Sen, Your comments are really amusing. You made a very "impartial" observation that I was try to WP:OWN.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1 , it appears that you are doing Wikipedia:Harassment. Your edit at Hindu taliban-afd as well as comments regarding my Chandrayaan edit are personal attacks . Please avoid terms like pov pushing and assume good faith. -Bharatveer (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your being reported on WP:AIV definitely got my attention. That's how I found the AFD and have been following your trail of disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a sec

You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed!!! Comments from "white house" and a " U.S politician" are indeed "on topic" in a Science article like Chandrayaan. User:Toddst are you aware of WP:BOLD-Bharatveer (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your questioned edit was in a section called "International reaction". You're not in a position to decide that only scientific info should be included in the article - especially since you left the rest of the section. Your argument rings hollow and I stand by my observation. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As an answer to your question above, Please look up NASA & ESA to see their relevance.-Bharatveer (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith there. Its hard to believe that you blocked me for saying your comments were amusing. But you may be right because last time they blocked me was for "cleaning up" my page. GOOD LUCK!!!-Bharatveer (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to believe - it's false. To be clear, you were blocked (for the 10th time) for incivility and disruptive editing, specifically making false accusations of "personal attacks", and "Harassment". You should be pretty familiar with these rules by now as an extreme repeat offender. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept this block in all my humility as it was done very "justifiably" by my friend tod.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion to extend RFAR

Please be advised that I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case at WP:RFAR. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)