User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive3
This is an archive of old discussions. You may edit this page to fix malformed signatures or to update links, but please direct new comments to my talk page.
- 1 Cricket
- 2 ^____^
- 3 User:126.96.36.199
- 4 Grace note
- 5 Time Cube
- 6 Userpage Vandalism
- 7 Overheard in Mississippi...
- 8 188.8.131.52
- 9 Graduation
- 10 Blocklog
- 11 Serial comma
- 12 tfd
- 13 Responding
- 14 Question
- 15 Signpostage
- 16 User: Yuber
- 17 Fair Use?
- 18 Chiropractic
- 19 Many Thanks
- 20 HELP!
- 21 Thanks
- 22 Wikimania interwiki links
- 23 Bengali
- 24 Yeah
- 25 Don't Mess With Me
- 26 Re: Welcome back
- 27 Block
- 28 Bengali
- 29 Thanks
- 30 Starships
- 31 Jimbo's talk page
- 32 Voyager links
- 33 Thanks KS :-)
- 34 Thanks of the welcome
- 35 Adding a picture to an article
- 36 Message from the Bank of Wikipedia
- 37 [Tarecos]
- 38 User:Who is it?
- 39 Unblock my account!
- 40 Cardiovascular disease
- 41 bad pw
- 42 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/184.108.40.206
- 43 Adminship
- 44 Template:Europe
- 45 My RFA: Thanks
- 46 Thank you for your support
- 47 You are right
- 48 Discuss here please
- 49 Lock up the Nehru page with my version please
- 50 Thanks
Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. As I have to be in Ann Arbor in about four hours, I'm going to bed. Keep an eye on this guy for me as long as you're up, will ya? :) —chris.lawson (talk) 08:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've revised Ornament (music) to try to address your concern about "grace notes." The distinction is that the acciaccatura is the way it is played, while the grace note is the written notation used to indicate it. Let me know if this is better. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is going to become a pointless revert war with 211.28.*.*, and based on the talk pages he/she has a lot more patience than any of us. I think we need to move this into mediation or at least a survey (so we can have an official consensus favouring a simple page). I've proposed this idea to 211.28.*.* on the talk page, please feel free to join in and add similar comments. Cheradenine 18:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have noticed the ongoing discussions elsewhere. There have been similar protracted discussions on the Time Cube Talk (not archived off mostly) by a couple of people, and on the Gene Ray Talk page. An RfC would be good, but both Gene Ray and Time Cube are already listed. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know if relisting or anything similar will have any effect. As for differences to Gene Ray's theory: I'm sure there are many - as I've mentioned in recent discussions on the Time Cube talk page much of the material is actually from CubicAO.tk, another website of considerably less note than Gene Ray's. As far as I have been able to establish it is a troll website, and 211.28 is using Wikipedia to troll people into pointless protracted discussions - see the Gene Ray and Time Cube (archive) talk pages to read Kosebamse and and anon mathematician get very effectively trolled.
- As you say, protecting pages isn't going to be a viable solution. From everything I've read arguing/discussing with 211.28 is exactly what he's trying to provoke, and he has apparently infinite time on his hands. All the while he will continue to revert and further vandalise pages with his views. Check out Theory of Everything for instance. According to 211.28's theories on CubicAO Time Cube relates to everything, thus presumably every page ought to make mention of it in his view. I'm not really sure what the proper course of action is, but I don't think there are any tidy solutions ahead. Cheradenine 05:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I was not aware that people thought of userpage vandalism as a "battle scar of hot love on the hot love highway", although I'm not certain I understand exactly what that means. Thank you, though, for informing me. Is this comment in relation to something or did you just wish to inform me? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- How about "I love you?" I've already said it a million times in a million words, but you didn't believe it was me. What more can I say? BobMeComma 20:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate it, but as we do not know each other, I think your love is a bit premature. Instead of leaving me cryptic messages, why don't you work on improving Wikipedia by making positive contributions to articles. I'm sure the right person will come along for you. As you're responding to my statement to User:BobMyDylan, I will assume you are the same person. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- What sort of knowledge do you seek? Biblical knowledge? Do you want to know the universe the way Sarai knew Abram? YaddahSeeker 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, no, I do not seek Biblical knowledge; I know enough to satisfy my curiosity for now. My interest in knowledge is diverse and would be difficult to easily summarize, but it tends to be focused on information that can be corroborated through logic and evidence. I don't know who Sarai or Abram are, nor am I particularly in knowing who they are. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Buckshot and associated sockpuppets, please stop posting messages for me. I have work to do on Wikipedia, and your messages are now becoming disruptive. As Wikipedia:User page specifies, user talk pages are to discuss matters related to Wikipedia. You may converse among yourselves, but please leave me out of it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know why you associate everyone who posts things you don't like with "Buckshot"--if anything, you are adding to the rebel/outlaw image of the Buckshot, Inc. brand name. Maybe you should give it a rest. Take a shower, use the waterpik, etc. MuppetMadness 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what things I like—it is things I don't understand; indeed, most users don't understand, and seem to have no connection to Wikipedia. As all of these accounts have their first or one of their first edits to find my talk page, it seems clear that they are sockpuppets of some user, and only Buckshot talks in this manner. This has become quite disruptive. I would be happy to give it a rest: I have no desire to receive these messages. I asked nicely: please stop harrassing me. Disruption may warrant blocking. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Chris Rock sez: "I wouldn't be here if my father didn't harass my mother."
Overheard in Mississippi...
- I believe it's a joke, my dear. YaddahSeeker 08:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Vandalised Pope, and made a number of a number of borderline abusive comments about other editors on his talk page after my warning. The block was justified. --nixie 02:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)--nixie 02:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Let us add our congratulations. And we'll keep watching you so keep up the good work you do for this project in your very busy life. hydnjo talk 23:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, congratulations! And maybe you can help out that terrible residency article with your new experiences :) --Dmcdevit 23:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys! Feels pretty strange to have those two extra letters. Sorry I've been so busy lately, but I'll get back to WP soon. Speaking of Residency, not only does it need cleanup, but also to be merged with Medical residency. I'll tackle that soon, hopefully next week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dr KS, about that blocklog tab thing you fixed up for me, I've noticed a couple of editors that it doesn't seem to work for. For example, I know that User:Leifern was blocked and unblocked today, yet when I click on the blocklog tab on his user page, nothing shows up. I'm wondering whether it's just that my browser isn't refreshing or something. Can you see it when you do it? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, that explains it. When I unblocked, I just clicked on the name; I didn't even noticed the two users. Thank you for clearing things up, as always. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. You had made some statements about serial commas on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Serial comma. A couple of editors changed the Style Guide to say it takes no position. Do you care to comment further? Jonathunder 23:46, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Well then here's a question I would like to ask you: is there any possible way that you can get Mel Etitis (or whatever his name is) to quit erasing all the edits I made to Spice Girls and Avril Lavigne articles? There is absolutely nothing I did to vandalise the page. All I did was fill it with some pictures, added some information, and corrected slight errors. He doesn't just come along, and take out the pictures, but also changes some of the headers of the article to his preference.
Who is really cheating here? DrippingInk 12:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
If there is an edit war/personal axe's to grind between two or three more users over many articles, should a RfC be done on each person or should a Request for Abritation be done to all of them at the same time? The users in question are User:Yuber and User:KaintheScion. Thanks. Zscout370 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, KaintheScion. I removed your entry from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, as it does not appear the user in question has actually engaged in vandalism. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what Wikipedia considers vandalism. If the user has vandalized in this manner, feel free to re-add the entry, and provide diffs to point us to examples of the vandalism. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yuber has been trying to reintroduce misinformation which was rejected during earlier dispute resolution of Yuber's LAST revert war on the Saudi Arabia page: see the last version as instated by Admin Petaholmes (here). This is bad faith and counts as Sneaky Vandalism (introducing misinformation) as listed in the vandalism page. KaintheScion
- Thanks for your reply. You do bring up a good point. I personally would not consider this sneaky vandalism, as I don't think the intent is to mislead and I don't believe the issue is as clear-cut as sneaky vandalism normally is. Nevertheless, if you wish to re-add the entry, I will not remove it again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please note that the rogue admin Firebug has now decided to throw an RFC at me to protect Yuber. KaintheScion
But it is Fairuse!!! I can't help that it isn't! DrippingInk 21:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Gee thanks. :)
Thank you for repairing the vandalism that was done to my user page! Regards, Salva 17:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone has impersonated me by replacing the L in my name with an I! Please! Ban him, so my IP isn't blocked again!Karatloz 12:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reverting my user page - it's greatly appreciated. Have a Cookie. :) I find it kind of amusing that this anon is accusing me of homophobia for "standing up for" User:Xtra, when I'm gay myself. I don't know how that twisted logic works. - Mark 09:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't get them to do what I wanted - I tried [[:cy:]], [[:cy]] and [[cy:]]. The first two gave links to the cy article and the third put a link in the other languages section of the sidebar. I was using Firefox 1.03 on Windows XP. Thryduulf 11:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yup! DrippingInk 19:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't Mess With Me
Re: Welcome back
Thanks for welcoming me back. The things that led me to leave in the first place was dealing with all of those heated conflicts and debates. Thus, as I mentioned on my user page, I am moving away from contributing to those heated discussions and start acting more like an impartial referee, judge, or jury when I'm around them. And thus, I am turning my attention to more direct article improvement and basic janitorial tasks. Anyway, see you around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll add the interwiki to the India page. I don't know how many contributors are there to the bengali wikipedia, but since the India page is a high profile one, a Bengali link would help in the future for expansion. Regards, =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 12:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've been waiting a while for some advice at WP:SD on the Michael Collins redirects. Your advice was all I needed. I'm still getting the hang of all the different deletion pages and cleaning stuff. Harro5 07:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
As you may know today we have many non-startrek USS enterprise ships. Even in startrek there are about 8 USS Enterpirse. Each have their seperate article. Ex: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). I have no problem if you move all starship pages to Star Trek namespace, however please do not name articles with just ship name, please maintain ships number. Most if not all ships have their serial number in title, this prevents conflicts by default. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
Funny. Do I know you? Who is it? 22:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, unless you classify that as funny. I guess we haven't met before in any environment. And no, I had no other reason, aside from poking fun at the Head and venting my anger in some anonymous and slapstick way. I don't vandalize normally. Don't worry. I won't vandalize yours. Who is it? 22:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to make it easier for anyone who decides to tidy the links to wherever the Voyager page may land at some time in the future. AlistairMcMillan 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks KS :-)
Yeah, I won't make silly pranks like that again. I can't tell you how much I appreciate a kind word right now though! I feel like a bit of an idiot and sorry about the whole business. I'll withdraw and if you wanted to put me forward in several months, I would not oppose the nomination :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo as well. :) --mav 11:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks of the welcome
Adding a picture to an article
I am creating an article on the Wannagan Creek fossil site. There is a painting of what the site was to have looked like on a government site. I believe that makes it public domain. However, am not totally sure.Paleok 07:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Message from the Bank of Wikipedia
If you like, I can open you an account. You are my second client, so I could give you 18 coins for free. You can use these coins as a medium of exchange here in wikipedia. For example, you can ask another wikipedian to make specific contributions, deletions, or cast votes for a subject, and pay him with your money. I am going to pay you 2 coins for each person you are going to introduce to the Bank.
Whatever transactions you are doing with other wikipedians, please do them in User_talk:Bank_of_Wikipedia. The trusted employees of the bank are going to confirm the validity of your transactions, and they are going to copy them (after a short delay) to your official account that will reside in User:Bank_of_Wikipedia userpage.
Please confirm that you want an account in our Bank. Thank you.
Bank of Wikipedia 08:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Its not bank's job to check the legality of any transaction. Bank of Wikipedia 08:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- (cur) (last) 22:02, May 23, 2005 Knowledge Seeker m (Reverted edits by Who is it? to last version by Electricmoose)
My browser does zilch, when I try to watch the guy's edit. Can you remember what kinds of edits he made? I'm asking because I think I know who he's a sockpuppet of and I need to know his style if he tries it again. Mgm|(talk) 16:24, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Unblock my account!
Hey you! unblock my User:Taxman's child account now! This username has always been my username around internet! Is this User:Taxman username copyrighted or something? Unblock my account NOW, otherwise I am going to complain to the administration for power abuse! Taxman's kid 15:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded! This is getting really good. I twiddled a bit with some of the stuff, but your expansion has really made the article. Could you help out with obesity? I've been trying to improve this into featured article material, but there is still a lot to do, especially on the non-medical side (i.e. cultural and social significance of obesity, specific government policies to target obesity) but also on the medical side (what else can we say about the neuropsychology of appetite)? JFW | T@lk 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not principled against bulleted lists, but it may be good to group the causes into (i) genetic/congenital, (ii) acquired conditions, (iii) lifestyle factors, or in any other grouping. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should aim to make sense out of the chaos.
As for the research section, I noted that there are hundreds of papers a week on cardiovascular disease, and that there are certain trends. I did not add endothelial dysfunction because I myself still cannot figure out what exactly is meant by that. JFW | T@lk 18:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey doc! No offense taken, but just to ease your medical mind, you don't have to fret for me — I am only a very occasional social smoker! · Katefan0(scribble) 20:08, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
You too huh? Congratulations yourself! Tempshill 21:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear sir, Despite your knowegable words, I feel confident that my campaign will achive success despite its rocky start, and therefore would take REAL objection from your removing my nomination. As for your concern about my state of mind, should I find nothing but defeat in my hopeful passage to adminship I will find confort in knowing that I am the first 6 year old to try. Haha, jk jk. I'm not 6. Anyway, don't worry about it. -Da 'Sco Mon 09:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I want to go workout, but do you suggest I answer the third question now instead of later? (approx. 10 hrs later). Thank you for your help. -Da 'Sco Mon 09:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. First: Thanks for protecting Template:Europe. Second: Could you please remove the protection tag, cause it is showing up on every European country article. Thanks! —Cantus…☎ 23:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
My RFA: Thanks
Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
You are right
You are right when you say what I am doing is vandalism. But that is only now. Lulu's action of reverting the Nehru article without provising any evidence is vandalism too. I was the one who painstakingly collected evidence and provided source for it. None of it is accepted. Now, it is too late. I don't trust anyone. I will make sure that the user discussion pages are locked up too. If they are not going to discuss with me and accept facts when provided with evidence, they can lock up every other page. [220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)]
Discuss here please
I won't check messages left for IP addresses that keep changing every time I logoff and logon. YEs, everyone whose page I'm posting the evidence they requested was involved in vandalism. Their method is to deny my claim, demand evidence, and when I provide evidence from mainstream sources, lock up the page with their fantasies. If it is a real dispute with both sides presenting evidence, I will accept it. In this case, it is plain fraud. They don't have to post evidence at all! Only I have to. And when I do, it is dismissed.
I am still open to arbitration, but no longer with bullies. It has to be with someone new and it has to be just ONE person. All others have to keep out. Pending the arbitration, the article has to be in my version. Think over it and let me know if you are ready for it.
BTW, banning my IP address is useless. I just have to logoff and logon and I can post again. Someone else suffers. I don't care about it. If this bullying continues, I will go to public libraries and start editing pages and you will be forced to block public libraries from accessing Wikipedia.
- Thanks for your message. I understand what you're saying about the article, but you have to stop your vandalism. To me it looks like you're not getting your way—whether that's justified or not I can't say, but vandalizing their user pages would be a form of bullying too. Regardless of how you feel about their claims at the Nehru article, trying to intimidate them into accepting your version is not the answer, and it will not work. Wikipedia works by consensus and discussion, not by harrassment. I am happy to discuss matters with you, but you must stop your vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am not forcing my way. I am confident that if we discussed and chose only facts, my version will be right. At least, Hornplease had the decency to discuss the points I raised even though s/he tried giving it a spin. Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is an arrogant racist who did not even bother to discuss the points. What is worse, the morons are learning about the Indian economy on the fly from me.
- All right. If that is so, there are several options we may choose—perhaps ask for an RfC (Requests for comment) to invite outside editors to take a look at the dispute. I can try to help you set it up. I should warn you, though, that if you continue to vandalize, it is unlikely that any outside editors will look favorably on your version. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I never claimed that I know to talk smoothly or post in a stylish manner, but in terms of facts, I am correct. I don't think an RfC will work if it is done with a predetermined motive of not accepting any point I present even it is a fact. Why is it that the others do not have to present any evidence, but can get away with what they want? Just because they have admin privileges doesn't mean they can abuse their powers. You are also confusing cause and effect. The admins who claimed to try to resolve the issue were the ones who were unfavorable to looking at facts. My posting of the evidence on various user pages was a reaction to them. Their unfavorable view and closedmindedness was the provocation.
- If you are serious about resolving the issue, it is fair that all bullies who have not even been bothering to collect data get out of the scene. This includes everyone who has edited the article, blocked me, or protected that page. I don't think I am willing to talk to them. They deny a fact that is plain as day, make me gather evidence for truism, and then abuse me and give their spin to data I collect. They just want to use me for data gathering and editorialize it their way.
- You and I can start fresh with what the article should contain. With this message, I have also stopped posting the evidence on the pages of Lulu..., Bhadani, and Hornplease. Of course, I am assuming that the Nehru page will be locked with my version pending resolution. That is important for me. I don't see why I have to always accept the temporary lock on the fictional version.
Lock up the Nehru page with my version please
I don't think you are serious about it. If you are serious, you should lock up the Nehru page with my version. Until then, I don't think I am going to trust you.
- I don't understand why you think an RfC would be done with a predetermined motive? I don't have an answer to your evidence question, as I am not familiar enough with the dispute. Are there any administrators who you feel are abusing their administrative powers? If so, whom? User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Bhadani, and User:Hornplease are not administrators. I understand that you are vandalizing in retaliation for their actions; I understand the cause and effect. However, the effect is an inappropriate reaction; it is never appropriate to vandalize a user's page in this manner, even if you disapprove of what he says or how he acts. What do you hope to accomplish by this vandalism? Yes, I would like to see this issue resolved. However, it is not for you to decide who may or may not work on an article. Nor is it for me to decide. If you want to exclude bullies who don't collect data, then bullies who vandalize others' user pages should surely be excluded, no? I understand that you may not wish to speak to them. If so, you are free to take a break from the Nehru article and work on other areas on Wikipedia instead. But it is outside anyone's authority to declare who may and may not work on an article (aside from arbitration cases, and even then they're often allowed to discuss changes on the talk page). You claimed that with your last message, you would cease your vandalism, yet it clearly continued. This is unacceptable. Regarding the protection, I realize that you feel it is unfair that the "wrong" version was protected, but in a content dispute, there will always be people who feel the wrong version was protected, regardless of which version it is. Also, from glancing at the history, it appears that you are the only one desiring that version, often violating the three-revert rule in the process. Regardless of other issues, if you are the only one who wants the article in a certain manner, and all the other editors think it's better the other way, statistically it is likely that when it is protected it will be on the version that most people preferred. However, all of this is largely irrelevant: I cannot change the protected article to the version you prefer. While I have the technical ability to remove or place protection, or to edit protected pages, it would be an abuse of my powers and a clear violation of protection policy. I have no special authority to declare a version better or worse. You are free to trust or distrust me as you see fit. I feel I have been open and honest with you and have given you no reason to distrust me. However, you have no special reason to trust me either. Look, you may be right about the article. You may not be. But you're going about it the wrong way. If you continue vandalizing, no one will take you seriously—you're already being called the "Nehru vandal". And with most if not all of your edits as vandalism, people will revert you without checking if the edit was actually helpful or not, since the vast majority of them seem to be to deface Wikipedia, rather than improve it. This sort of harrassment/revenge is not how we do things. The more you keep it up, the harder it will be to find anyone who will agree with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I went back to posting the evidence on their pages because you became silent for a few hours instead of responding to me. I am not the only one who wants the article in a particular manner. There were others who seem to have left (embarassed at having to be on my side, no doubt.)
May I ask you why an article authored by a person who has painstakingly collected evidence is called vandalism while bullying without even bothering to discuss is called restoring the accepted version? At least, by posting the evidence repeatedly on their pages, I was living up to the abuses I faced. I was called a vandal for posting an article backed by solid evidence.
I am not asking that my opinions be posted. I am asking that the article be factually correct. Those who interfered and reverted without discussing were posting stuff contrary to the information available in various mainstream sources (media, governments, financial institutions, universities, etc.) Even Nehru's own Congress Party says what I say (except that they are proud of it, while all of us see it as a negative - that is why those who want to suppress it do so).
I suggest that for a start we post ONLY FACTS, no interpretations and no editorializing from either side. Facts should be checked against mainstream sources. Maybe, you can look at the sources I posted on the pages of Lulu, Bhadani and Hornplease. The dispute was whether India's economy was envisioned by Nehru as a planned economy based on the Soviet model. First they denied it, when I provided evidence, they ganged up and claimed that there were no production limits on consumer goods, when I provided evidence for that, they argued endlessly that India was actually a free-market, when I provided evidence that it was a planned economy, they claimed there were no government run ration shops, then I had to provide evidence for this too! Notice that I was providing evidence for things that are common knowledge. These guys have never even heard of terms like "license raj." On ANY GIVEN DAY, you can search for the term in news.google.com and you will see a few hits. They simply want to suppress this fact. Temporarily, the article should be locked with my version. I do not see any reason why ignorant folks like Lulu, Hornplease, Firebug, Bhadani (to be fair, he seems to be a well meaning kid eager to learn stuff) and ZScout370 should have their way without providing a single piece of information.
All that they do is to ask me for information, make me fetch it, and then state the opposite by giving a spin on it. This is unacceptable. Lulu and Hornplease, in particular, are so dumb that they had never heard of the term, "commanding heights" and never even knew that India's economy was controlled by a Planning Commission. According to them, Sweden too is run by a Planning Commission (the reasoning is that if India is run by a Planning Commission, so is Sweden!)
Why are you shy of protecting the page with the version containing the data I provided? I am willing to take out anything that cannot be substantiated as the discussion goes along. For now, it is only fair that the page not be protected in a state where fabrications without evidence are part of the article.
- You should not expect me to always respond to messages within a few hours; I am not at my computer for much of the day and I have other activities on Wikipedia as well. In any case, my reticence is not justification for vandalism. I am not certain what activities you did before or what others called you. Certainly collecting evidence is not vandalism; however, since I first came across you, , it appears that all your edits (with the exception of the messages you left me) have been to vandalize. Do you really believe that this material is really relevant to Stone Age? I really am not familiar enough with Nehru to give opinions on the arguments you make: these would be better-suited for the article's talk page or a Request for Comment. If the article's editors are behaving inappropriately, then outside editors would support your view, assuming they haven't been biased by your other actions. Finally, my refusal to modify the page is not related to shyness; on the contrary, I believe in the Wikipedia community and I take community opinion and policy very seriously. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Protection policy for more information, but suffice it to say that editing a page protected due to a content dispute is clearly against policy. It would be inappropriate for me to unprotect it at this point as the dispute has not resolved, and it would be highly inappropriate to unprotect it and then revert to your favored version—and then protecting it would quite against policy. I will not abuse my abilities in this manner. I am an administrator: I have been trusted with special tools, but I cannot use them to enforce my opinion in this manner. My opinion does not carry more authority than that of a non-administrator. You may also wish to read The Wrong Version. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reverting vandalism on my User Page. I feel some people like to vandalize user and other pages for plain fun (lol), and excitement.--Bhadani 00:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)