User talk:Harjk

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Avineshjose (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This is Harjk's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Harjk}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

/Jimbo Wales

Reply

Stop wikilawyering. I'm not targeting you, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Your addition to "Muzzle" didn't entirely make any sense. If you want to split hair, it was an incomplete and grammatically incorrect sentence. I assumed you were trying to say that attachments such as silencers are affixed to the muzzle of the weapon, and I edited it that way. Finally, it shows that you are not entirely familiar with edit histories and reading them. If you will look here, you will see that I completely rewrote your sentence. My edit to Nair wasn't a blind revert in any sense. If you have an issue, discuss it in the talk page. Just because "established editors" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that) have changed the article, it is no reason for you to do so. Have you even outlined your points or your reasons for reverting said article? As far as an edit summary, I said rvv. Has your research into wikipedia policies told you what that means? I'm more than familiar with Wikipedia policies. Just quoting policies doesn't mean that you know anything about them. Your quoting of JNN is inaccurate. I'm familiar with notability guidelines and I'm not afraid to admit when I've made a mistake. In the case of your article about Hema Sinha, there are simply not enough facts to make her notable. You'll notice that another editor added the prod template to the Gigi Mon Mathew article, and then reverted it for the simple reason that you cannot re-add a prod. I'm going to try and flesh out that article if I can find more sources. Otherwise, it's going to AFD. Don't take it personally.--vi5in^[talk] 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying. The evidences I’d given in your talk page shows that your WP:ABF targeting my edits. ;Wikilawyering’ is the term I called you because of your bad faith attitude. If you had known that ‘Silencers are affixed to the muzzle of the weapon’ why did you revert it? What was the reason for adding inappropriate edit summary and unconstructive targets? Your edit to Nair was also a blind pov fork pushing. It has been reverted by established users like Relata refero and others. It is noted that you and Nambiar is pushing pov’s onto the article. Gigi Mon Mathew, better you take to AFD and lets watch what would happen. I challenge you and I’m sure that it would survive in its nature otherwise we editors shouldn’t create any biography’s with references. You GO ahead WP:INSPECTOR. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not lying. Your "evidence" is not evidence in the least. As far as silencers go, that is what I assumed you were trying to say. I couldn't tell initially what you were saying. There wasn't any sort of misleading edit summary. Also, if you're going to accuse me of doing something, then make sure you figure out exactly what it is that I am doing wrong. "POV fork pushing" doesn't mean anything. Are you saying I am trying to make a POV fork of the article, or are you saying that I am pushing POV? I am doing neither. I'm not challenging you to anything. Your gratuitous use of WP policy links show that you're the one wikilawyering, and not assuming good-faith. Please don't try to intimidate me, or assume I'm challenging you. I'm not. I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion anymore since it's obvious no headway is going to be made. --vi5in^[talk] 06:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t think that I am wrestling with you. Better you focus on contributions, not targets. Keep up good works. That’s all. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wish you the same thing. I'm not trying to say that you are a bad Wikipedian. I've noticed that you've made a lot of contributions to articles and that you're making them in good-faith. It's just that some of them don't fit in; it's not personal. So keep up your good work too, and I mean that sincerely. --vi5in^[talk] 06:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never never never, you are mistaken again. I am the one who always against Crufts & NOR, I am the one who supports whatever assholism articles, if proper sources are being provided. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigi Mon Mathew

See here. Your input would be appreciated. --vi5in^[talk] 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination & personal attack. See my rationale at AFD pg. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nair

Please don't blindly revert the page. Relata and I have a good discussion going on here. You're welcome to provide input. --vi5in^[talk] 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this one more time. Please join the discussion in the Nair talk page instead of reverting the discussion. You will notice that Relata discussed his points and that I made some of the modifications he suggested. I'm urging you to discuss the issue and bring forth points on how we can make the article better. --vi5in^[talk] 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the information that you are deleting has been referenced. I'm not sure what you mean by "cristal ball" [sic], but the Vivaham information has been properly sourced and referenced. The Subcaste information has a suitable template requesting more reliable sources. At present, it has the 1905 Travancore State Manual. I already asked you once to involve yourself in the ongoing discussion on the talk page, however you seem disinclined to do so. What you are doing now is simply vandalism. You are deleting information without any sort of rationale, and without even discussing your changes. You will notice that Relata put forth some concerns which I adequately addressed. I've tried to involve you in dialogue to no avail. If you continue, I will have no option but to report you to WP:ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always standing for truth, in my opinion I am totally against crufts and nonsense. Relata and other 2 editors are fighting against you guys pov-push in the article. If you really want, you report it to ANI, I dont care at all. But I will always fight with pov-cruft nonsense even my my tooth & nail gets seriouselly broken. I dont care. But I will keep on remove nonsense wherever I found. The material you are trying to push is unencyclopedic & complete nonsense. WP is not a crystall ball either to keep all the monkeysms. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really... I guess you haven't looked at the discussion on the talk page? Whatever... WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Try and think this over. I'm at work right now and I don't have the time to take this to WP:ANI right now. I'll do it later. Unless you actually decide to discuss the issue. --vi5in^[talk] 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI & IDIDNTHEARTHAT you quoted from another AfD, which I'd replied already there. Take the issue at ANI, lets discuss there. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you want to discuss this on the talk page, instead of going to ANI? I didn't quote anything from anywhere. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. --vi5in^[talk] 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too generally dont like to go into ANI. But here it is total monkeysm happening. Anyway, I've to logout now, talk/revert it later. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "monkeysm". What does that word mean? Please don't revert. All you have to do is go to the talk page and discuss the issue there. --vi5in^[talk] 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, 'Monkeysm' stands for complete nonsense materials pushed by pov pushers in order to push their point of view. What I reverted was low important cast nonsense info, since WP is not a crystall ball, its irrelevent adding. That's why a mejourity wants it to be removed.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Vi5in raised an incident in my talk pg, your comments are welcome. I hope my revert was reasonable since I arranged it in chronological order. --Avinesh Jose T 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj

Can you stop vandalizing the article? Otherwise you should say which part you consider refers to self-published material or original research...

74.85.13.60 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove AfD tag until the issue is settled. Therefore, I reverted your vandalism. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Harjk, why are you undoing my additions? I made the the name in the first sentence bold, which is also the topic name. This is in line with the Wikipeida guidlines. Why are you reverting it, what is the purpose of that? Demophon (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit because, you have removed AfD tag until the discussion was over. That is against our policies. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I didn't remove anything at all (somemone else did that), I just added something. I did made the name in the first sentence bold, which is the topic name. So why is this removed? Demophon (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Avineshjose (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. vi5in^[talk] 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

_GB^T/C 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock case, explanation from User:avineshjose

I'm not User:Harjk and I have no idea about who is he/she, the issue I'd posted in ANI notice board. Please check --59.93.18.136 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (Comment by User:avineshjose)[reply]

My explanation in this issue can be found in my my talk page. The actual problem was all related to shared ip issues. When the issue occured, a single ip in my office used to share with around 25 computers & later the suspected person User:harjk later told me that he created this id for fun and etc. That's it & I do not want to comment further on this issue. --Avinesh T 17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]