User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive24

User:Holywarrior

As per your request, I have decided to never say a word to him again. I also want you to ask Shell Kinney where I have been incivil; I think he robot-wrote our blocks. You might want to look at his talk page for a nice treat.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that - just not to use templated warnings. You'll have to talk to him if you want to revert his edits....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shell said I was "wearing community patience thin" so I did not take his words lightly, I'm doing just as he probably wanted.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Indrancroos

I went to the trouble of removing Indrancroos' personal attacks from Talk:Indian martial arts and the first thing he does upon his return from Blocklevania is re-post them.[1]

He also left a message on my Talk Page insinuating racism.[2]

Also, he seems to be confusing me with Kennethtennyson, which is of course no excuse, but I thought I'd point it out.
JFD 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert/edit warring by User:Holywarrior on Lalu Prasad Yadav

A content/neutrality dispute has taken place between me and Holywarrior. I tried to discuss with him but he threatened me with accusations of policy violation. I am thus filing an RfC. I have put NPOV tags in the article and HW has unilaterally removed them [3], [4]. I have reverted back [5] and hope that a revert war does not begin. Based on his hostile attitude here (which summarizes some of my issues with the article) I believe that another edit/revert war is brewing, though I hope that such a regrettable thing will not happen. I would not like to approach 3RR so I would appreciate your intervention before things escalate, as they have been known to before with cases involving him. Thank you very much. If no further reverts of this nature happen then no problem.Hkelkar 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted that it should stay. You need to get a second person to say they are having the same problems with Holywarrior. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for dropping me a note regarding my RfC. I did not see the rule that said that 2 users are required to initiate an RfC. I'm sorry if that was wrong of me. I was looking at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and I thought that it said that, failing negotiation, a user may request mediation through RfC Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Discuss with third parties and thought that RfC was the way to achieve that. If that is not the way, then should I file a mediation cabal, or is there anything else? Please let me know.Hkelkar 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand. Yes, I would like extra pair of eyes to opine about the dispute which I do not think I will be able to resolve with Holywarrior by myself. Can you endorse the RfC, making it two people, or is there a conflict of interet issue on account of your status as an admin?Hkelkar 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what are the exact criteria for another user to get involved? If a user sees the RfC and wishes to comment, is that enough? Based on what you said it seems to me that the RfC in it's present form is not illegitimate. Can I contact another user and ask him to look at the rfC and, if he agrees that there is a problem, endorse it?What advice can you offer regarding this situation? Thank you.Hkelkar 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I'm presently doing an RfC on the article Laloo Prasad Yadav, Regarding HW's edits there, not HW himself.Sorry for the misunderstanding.Hkelkar 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Though if HW persists in his attutude and other users agree then I may consider it. Not all his edits are bad so I'm not prepared to complain against him yet.Hkelkar 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hello Blnguyen,

Regarding the request to block edits to the mauryan empire page and ashoka. The issue is that individuals are positing side-theories as main-stream opinion. Moreover, they are expounding upon that and making insinuations that are tantamount to sneaky vandalism. I was the user who was making reverts on account of their ignoring my questions and requests. As seen on the discussion page, other users also expressed concerns. I even suggested a compromise such as creating a separate article wherein theories could be posited and the main page spared. These were also ignored--there was not even a response to that. This has been done for origin and ancestry theories before (i.e. Chandragupta Maurya, Vijaynagar empire). If you could please arbitrate, and request that a compromise along such lines be put into place, that would be greatly appreciated. My concern is the historicity of the article and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,

Devanampriya - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs)

Hello Blnguyen,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I would like for just that section to be deleted because it misinforms wikipedia users. I know you are very busy, but I can go into exactly why historians don't embrace this hypothesis (primary indigenous sources, polygamy in indian monarchies, dating issues, etc), and will do so if you'd like. The contributor, PHG, takes an hypothesis made by two colonial authors and then takes liberties to construct and entire historical construction that no mainstream modern historian embraces, because even the originators state that it is far-fetched. This user has previously taken primary source edits and interpreted them himself on wikipedia pages. My only concern is historical accuracy, which is why I appealed to you on this count. However, in the interest of finding a fair solution to all, and in order to observe wikipedia's aims of community harmony, I suggested a compromise. While I definitely believe those sections should be deleted, I would be just as happy if you could consider this suggestion (as there was a successful precedent for it with the Chandragupta debate). Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Devanampriya - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs)

The Maurya page needs mediation.

I do believe it requires someone(s) who is/are impartial to arbitrate the brewing dispute. PHG and Devanampriya have been at it for a while, but PHG especially seems unwilling to concede on any point. Even when it is apparent to everyone reading that Deva and Vastu have both shown him to be wrong. I have tried rephrasing their arguments and reasoning with him, but to no avail. Even that does not bug me so much though. It is just that he has a penchant for drawing his own conclusions based on information derived from his sources (which are horrendously biased anyway, even by his own admission), and then attributing his conclusions to that source and crying "foul" whenever someone proves it wrong.

On a side note, something needs to be done about Aldux. His comments are wholly inappropriate and border on bullying anyone who disagrees with him.

Pavanapuram 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Do you even know who Robert Vadra is and who are Bhumihars. I would suggest you to refrain from passing arbitrations over articles over Indian people and castes. I am really appalled to see your behaviour. User:Ikonoblast is a well-known vandal who has banned several times. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 07:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to become an arrogant admin. I am craving for what you call "credits". I have a decent social life and banning people without a valid reason is what you can do at the most but do you realize that only USERNAMES can be banned and NOT users. I don't want to know your definition but I do know very well that these people User:Ikonoblast and User:Hornplease are CLEARLY biased and are against certain castes and political parties. Do you want me to show some proofs? And I have long considered reporting User:Ikonoblast's activities to the Admins' noticeboard but now I fear they too would not listen after getting threats of bans from you. And User:Ikonoblast HAS BEEN banned for removing other people's appropriate comments which is considered vandalism by the very same encyclopedia's policies of which you are an admin of. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 07:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't get your wiki cant but I would like to remind you that as an admin, you have certain responsibilities. You are actually DISCOURAGING users from adding useful information to the wikipedia. Its motto is "Be BOLD". The truth should be exposed no matter how controversial it is. Why are Moslem admins refuting the fact that Aisha was six when she was married to Muhammad? They had locked the two articles. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 07:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Vadra

"gives the impression"? I do not care about what "impression" do people get and I never called him corrupt because he is not involved in active politics and neiher does he hold an office. What proofs must be provided to "PROVE" that the son-in-law and the daughter of the ruler of India lives in a state-owned bungalow? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try to understand that it is INDIA and such things are so common that even telling people about it would be banal. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

220.226.73.176

Sir, I need your attention on edits made by this new user. His edit in Vijayanagara Empire page and its talk page are not according to Wiki policies (one is a possible vandalism and another is a direct personal attack on another contributor and a community). Thank you. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusatory?

Hi. Are these accusatory comments (in diff below) acceptable as per WP:Civil? Please advise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALalu_Prasad_Yadav&diff=74629303&oldid=74419398

Hkelkar 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They are mild, but unhlepful. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal on several articles

I think that some of the recent edits made by an anonymous ip are vandalism.

His contrib history is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.143.175.215

Particularly vandalistic are his edits of Eurabia and Bajrang Dal. He has also vandalized my user page, rehashing the old sockpuppetry accusation which has been closed. I have reported him for vandalism, but he continues to vandalize the articles and my fixing it might get me above 3RR. I feel that these edits are vandalistic and so, in my opinion, 3RR does not apply.However, since users have been banned for violating even the precept of 3RR before I'd like your opinion on the situation, since I'm still quite new to wikipedia. Please advise. Thank you.Hkelkar 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking. I've locked the Bajrang Dal page. The "terrorist" thing is POV - we don't use it even for Osama bin Laden, but generally you don't get blocked unless it is for naked opinion and commentary, which isn't the case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

I don't think there was any major edit warring, just some minor quibbles. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Hibotuk, Hobutok etc.,

Pls take a look at this user.

Hibotuk
Hobutok

sarvagnya 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

In the case of User Subhash Bose, his diatribes against Islam ( despite being pointed out to you) did not even get him any request to tone down.In the discussion you are asking me to tone down there was also an accusation of my being a troll by Baka, which has not commented upon by you. Whereas in the past I have got rapped ( again by you) for even responding to a taunt( by Subhash). You have been more than zealous to implement wiki policy on all users who get into a discussion with User Subhash and his coterie. The reverse does not seem to have the same zealousness. There are other admins watching the page, I would request that whenever User subhash or his talk page is involved you do ask the other admins to take action as I feel you have taken a stance which is not neutral. Haphar 07:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus I do not see any comments from you on the following either [6]. Haphar 07:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)- To quote some of the stuff but in by Subhash himself " which Haphar's self-orgasmic rants here are not). Any user is free to remove what he considers vandalism or bogus warnings from any talk page. baka has done so and I am eternally grateful to him for it. He was not acting as my sockpuppet as I could have done so at any time. I've been busy, else I would have gone on irc and requested Blnguyen or someone to protect this talk page from wikitrolls like Haphar. Haphar 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Haphar I agree with you there are many ocassions where Blnguyen has failed to take action against these ppl.Phps he is concerned about the survey he is carrying out on top of this page.Not impressive I must say. Ikon |no-blast 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you assume that I have read his edits and willfully ignored his transgressions again and that I have been protecting him. A comparison of the block logs tells the truth. As to my warnings, it is just a warning, rather than a block as Subhash gets when he crosses the line. Referring to your self-justification for your counterattack to Subhash, please direct me to the part of WP:NPA where counter-attacks are permitted - and also any reader can easily see that Subhash was blocked for longer, and frequently by myself. Anybody who isn't blind or completely mentally polluted or biased can see that Subhash has been taken to account more than you have. If you look at my contrib log you will see that I have been away during his latest tawdry edit. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not countered Subhash but Baka ( now let's Baka him say that you accused him of being a sockpuppet) in the discussion, and saw no warning from you ( and still see nothing) on his accusing me/ calling me a troll. Thank you for your action on Subhash. Haphar 09:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, Blnguyen has punished ME most of all. I don;t bear any grudge or ill will against him, or any admin who has blocked me, for that matter.In fact, I can object that Haphar, despite his repeated incivility, tauntings and veiled insults, has gotten off easy, as has Holywarrior/Ikonoblast/whoever-the-heck-he-claims-to-be-now.Shiva's Trident 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Might want to look at my talk page here and the incivility of Haphar and Ikonoblast/Holywarrior, part of HIS coterie.Plus, his rants were entirely out of place in my talk page as they had to do with him and Baka. He should have bothered Baka on HIS talk page instead.Shiva's Trident 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I add Haphar still insists on calling me a sock. Replying to Haphar with the Troll definition was perhaps a lapse in civility, but his denigration of my edits and his rehashing of the old "Bakaman is Subhash sock" line got really old.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where I called you a sock ? I have said it before that you "were accused in the past". That is not calling you a sock. If you insist on getting your edit count into every discussion then please do not get hurt on the issue of qaulity being brought in. Haphar 09:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash's talk page

Could we just quarantine it? I don't know why people feel the need to constantly spar on that page. I'll take a look. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurya Empire Discussion

Hello Blnguyen,

Regarding your recent message: my reference to aldux being a "thug" was on account of PHG's enlistment of him to use charged language and to intimidate me. It was not meant to be a personal attack but to emphasize how the other party was not attempting to discuss the subject matter but was seeking to coerce others to accept the inclusion of the edit. I will point out the Indo-Greek map debate/edit war between Aldux and Vastu.

Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and wikipedia NPA, and will not refer to him as a thug in the future. But I would beseech you to encourage Aldux to avoid attempting to threaten people by noting that they "will pay the consequences" and used other phrases that are not in line with civility on Wikipedia.

Also, I was wondering what your thoughts were on my compromise suggestion, since I am not the only wikipedia contributor who is concerned with that edit. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Blnguyen, I'll just add a few words. First, Dev. says I was "enlisted" by PHG; this is completely untrue, as I arrived instead by glancing at PHG's contributions. I've always much appreciated PHG's featured articles, and in particular his last one, Hasekura Tsunenaga: and when I saw that there was a dispute at Maurya Empire, with Dev. deleting reliably sourced, and relevant material and PHG trying to conserve it; so I made my first edit, a revert to PHG's version, at September 3, 15:53 [7]; for this edit PHG, that was obviously online, thanked me, sending me a message after my first edit, at September 3, 16:01 [8]; and no, before Dev. says this, PHG didn't send me a message by e-mail, as he never has (strangely, considering our common interests, our wiki interaction has been generally quite low, probably because my hellenistic interests are more "traditional" - Egypt, Greece, Syria, Anatolia). Before PHG's message, I had posted at September 3, 16:00 this warning [9], that reads You are in danger, if you haven't already done it, of violating the WP:3RR. Also, remember that removing sourced material is considered vandalism. Now it's up to you to chose: respect the rules, or continue breaking them and pay the consequences (that is, getting blocked). This was a due message, as there was no 3RR warning on his user page, and, well, blanking is considered vandalism. What was unnecessary, I admit it, mea culpa, was the last period: while true (violation of the 3RR does generally bring to a block), the tone was too harsh. But too call sending a 3RR warning "intimidation" and calling using the term "thug" three times [10] [11] [12] "not meant to be a personal attack", shows, IMO, little knowledge of wikipedia rules. And I bet that also saying of me "His charged comments and uncivil behavior stand against the community orientation of wikipedia, and pale only in comparison to his ignorance.",[13] is not for him a personal attack against me. And it's not only with me: many of his responses to PHG at User talk:Devanampriya and Talk:Maurya Empire show the same violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA.

The same day I entered the dispute, a second editor intervened to oppose the blanking of the new edits, User:Khoikhoi, who started editing Maurya Empire on September 3, 20:01; I swear I didn't call him, but suspect he knew of the dispute through Dev.'s awnser [14] on my user page; me and Khoikhoi collaborate a lot, and it's probable my user page is on his watchlist. Against us Devanampriya has waged at Maurya Empire and Ashoka a one-man-war, even if he tried in an all ways to enlist supporters, as can be seen by the messages asking for support in his crusade he sent to [[15]] (already on August 28!), [[16]], [[17]], [bose], and once again, more insistently, with [[18]], and also with the admin [[19]], to whom he sent a message that I feet only as partisan, but, IMO, highly slanderous towards me. The only one that came in the dispute was Vastu, but who didn't side with Dev. and instead wrote of his general approval of PHG's edits [20].

Since Dev. couldn't find any support (even if he says: "I am not the only wikipedia contributor who is concerned with that edit"; I'd like to know where are the other users so concerned), he started violating systematically the 3RR, but being careful to use anon. accounts, so to not be seen; but he hasn't been very careful, and had forgot that in previous occasions he had used these accounts to write comments in talk pages, often leaving his signature, "Devanampriya". When the article was locked, a brand new editor emerged, User:Pavanapuram, editing only on Talk:Maurya Empire, that interestingly, not only voiced the same opinions of Devanampriya and appeared here on your talk to strengthen Dev. and, he too (how strange) attack me; he is also, and this is of particular interest, always editing, I've controlled, in exactly the same time periods in which Devanampriya was.

From this I awnser that we shouldn't abide to a single editor who is trying to impose his will and erase sourced information; sources that have behind them authors still respected in academia, and that are regularly mentioned in the hellenistic history books bibliographies. I'm no fan of Tarn, quite the opposite: but it's one of those authors that even his opposers feel they have to mention, was it only to counter him with other arguments. Obviously, this theory is just a theory, to mention among other theories; which is done by PHG's edits, and other theories can be added when sourced. I also disagree on creating a new article, in which to throw all Dev. doesn't wan't; there is no reason why fully sourced edits must be exiled for motives that are almost declarately nationalistic.

Sorry if I was so long, but I wanted to give you a full and detailed map of the situation. Ciao,--Aldux 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aldux. I don't think for one moment that your conduct towards other users has been of ill-will. I don't support the excising of the information, but can we get more info from Buddhist oriented sources or Jain sources to make it bigger. Because it does seem as though there is not much detail about Ashoka and Buddhism and Ashoka the conqueror, and the same in the Maurya Empire - at the moment there is lots of information about the Greek connection, which inherently there is nothing wrong, but it may give the impression that Ashoka was a Greek reprentative or something - it just feels a bit too oriented on his bloodline and not what he nor the Mauryans achieved. In any case it was interesting that I got Mahinda (his son, who brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka) and Moggaliputta-Tissa (his spiritual adviser) to DYK in the week leading up to the locking - could we put more stuff about Buddhism into the articles to balance it out as well as his stuff about the Kalinga conquest etc. The Greek stuff is still interesting of course and I don't see a reason to cull it unless there is POV or weaselly stuff compromising it. Anything this old, of course cannot be certain, so as long as we give both a fair hearing then it should work out OK. This could be an interesting case as I am interested in learning more about Asoka. Perhaps I can find more about his Indian activity (religion and miltary) to balance it out. Tell me what you think. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and kind response. IMO, what you propose is exactly what should be done; not remove text, but expand the other sections, possibly bringing Ashoka and Maurya Empire to feature status. I'ts very interesting to hear you're interested in Ashoka; I hope you'll find time, as you propose, to add material as you said, on the buddhist and military activities. Unfortunately my knowledge on India tends to start with the Moghuls, so I can't be of much help; but PHG had an important role in writing the feature History of Buddhism, so I think he'll be able to say quite a lot on the buddhism section.

Regarding an argoment that doesn't involve Maurya-Greek relations, what do you think of the section Maurya Empire#Historical Comparison? IMO, this section stinks quite a lot as a violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV and especially WP:OR, offering a quite overtly anti-chinese pov as estabilshed truth. Should this section be removed? Or tagged as OR while we wait for sources, trying in the meanwhile to npovize it? Or keep it at it is? Tell me your view. Ciao, Aldux 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be removed, I can't see how it is useful in any way as at that stage China and India had no contact with each other and it could have comparisions with any other random empire. Apart from that it seems like original analysis and seems vague and wobbly. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I can't believe the checkuser came back inconclusive. See [21] and [22]. The editing pattern similarities are quote obvious, and yet everyone believes the story about two different students at the same uni who like to edit the same articles, one editor who registered during another one's block. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I registered at a time Subhash_bose was blocked as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindu students council must be a big club at UTexBakaman _Bakatalk 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When he was on IRC, he was uncloaked, so everybody could see the two IP addresses and they were definitely different. One was a university IP and the other was a commercial internet company. Of course, if he is sneaky, he could be sitting at home with two computers, one using his home account and the other remotely logged into his uni account, to give two locations when he is in one room with two computers. Having said that, there is a definite difference in the style of conduct.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know he didn't get a friend to pose for him using a university computer? BhaiSaab ^talk 02:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar doesnt use "nein mein freund".Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly he was on at about 6 UTC, which is about 10-11pm Texas time, so he would have required security cards to get into uni. It would be a big move to take this risk of being caught breaching security regulations by taking an unauthorised person into a physics lab with expensive equipment at a higly regarded physics school for a wikipedia stunt. Also I looked at the student list and there are about 220 students [23] in the Physics Dept and 8 are Indian. PhD students need to help supervise lab classes (I do so myself) and share the same lunch room, and are required to attend the weekly afternoon tea and reaserch seminar, so you end up talking to everyone all the time, even though when you are in undergraduate you only talk to a few specific friends, as you now live in the same office 50 hours a week. It's quite likely that 2 out of the 8, at least 25% will be BJP supporters. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Template

You once said that Subhash bose cannot remove the sockpuppeteer template from his userpage. Does that apply to all users who've been blocked one time or another for sockpuppeteering? BhaiSaab ^talk 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit

yes you may. What content disupte? dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ah, are you referring to Spiritindia (talk · contribs)? that was an account adding nonsense (I grant you, possibly out of utter cluelessness rather than malice), revert-warring and in violation of 3RR at the time in top of that. Not a bona fide content dispute. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"7RR"??

Your behaviour is rather unrealistic. You blocked Crculver for rolling back nonsense added to articles? I am sorry, but I think you need to review your notion of 'content dispute'. A newbie account adding random nonsense and refusing to negotiate does not constitute a 'content dispute'. It is difficult enough to keep these articles in half decent shape without your blocks. I cannot see that Crculver has violated the 3RR at all, he reverted various additions, but even if you consider the 'Spritindia' incident a bona fide content dispute, he only reverted three times there. You seem to be handing out blocks rather liberally and rather erratically, and I would strongly recommend you post your decisions on WP:AN/I for review. People investing their time in rolling back nonsense are not in unlimited supply, and if you go about blocking these, you should be asking yourself, do your actions benefit the project? 'Spiritindia' should not have got as far as he did, he should have been {{test}}ed after his first edit.

Regarding your other question, yes, Bharatveer is clearly a bad-faith editor and has proven so in numerous instances. Until he is banned I still acknowledge his additions fall under 3RR, but I see no reason not to roll him back, especially since there was debate (or what passes for 'debate' in Bv's case) ongoing on the talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are being reviewed here. I can see it both ways. I would've blocked the user myself but like I said, I can see it either way. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems dab is trying to gain the edge in a content dispute. He hates Bharatveer [24] with a passion and hates me too, beause I confronted him about some controversial talk page discussions and edits [25],[26],[27],[28]. Infact even dab suggested I was Subhash_bose's sock.[29]Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed. I don't see the justification for using rollback in this case at all, or for banning users as vandals in this case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marathi people article

Thanks for ur reply. But a important questiom,do i have to make those changes within next 2 days???I mean I will need more time to collect info and citations.

The comment about Maharashtrian cricketers were about their dominance in the world of (Indian cricket).But I will refine the sentence.I will expand the list as u suggested.

Madhuri Dixit's pic is taken from Wikipedia itself!Can i use that strip if I remove her pic,or perhaps have some screenshot of it?I have another Madhuri's pic but I dont know about its copyright info etc.

I never said YOU attacked Maharashtra.I know ur not a Indian and hence neutral.I was apprehensive about a user badmouthing against me in ur talk page. mahawiki 09:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Marathi people

I have removed all the POV sounding statements. I have also added references and citations, in case someone wants them. Also, Zaheer plays for Baroda team but he is originally from Maharashtra from a village in between Pune and Nashik. He speaks fluent Marathi at his home and many times with Marathi media as well. He has a restaurant in Pune as well.

Thanx for the help.

--Arya Rajya Maharashtra 07:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Marathi article

Bl, I spent about 20 mins reviewing the article and adding tags and removing POV. It is not upto some user to simply do away with the tag and continue building the article. I dont have problems if the article grows, but the editors should atleast have the basic courtesy and manners to keep the tags until they've provided proper citations. And why should I keep spending more and more time adding the same tags. Let Arya who removed the tags pay for it and do the hard work. I just want my tags back on the article. Or I will go ahead and delete entries for which I had asked for citation and Arya simply deleted those tags. And as for your entry I think you only entered Wadekar there, I'll put that in myself if you want but Arya cannot take WP audience for fools by simply doing away with legitimate tags. Sarvagnya 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See the diff between my ver+Wadekar and Arya's ver here. Things like "Director extra ordinaire", "Greatest" of Satavahana kings etc., are blatantly POV or need to be referenced. Same goes for titles like "goal poacher" etc., which is certainly not 'common knowledge'. Sarvagnya 08:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok.Thanks for ur info.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)

Bajrang Dal Debate

On the talk page of Bajrang Dal, Hkelkar brought up an issue regarding to the meaning of a sentence. I'll give you the context first: a few activists of Bajrang Dal were killed in the process of bombmaking, and many other people are accused of aiding the bombmaking, etc. Here is the sentence:

However we have come to know from the police sources that police has seized maps of a few Mosques situated in nearby districts from the houses of the accused which give credence to the rumors.

My question: Is it clear that the maps were found exactly at the houses of the accused (my view), or would you think the statement is ambiguous (Hkelkar's view)? Thanks! Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

(reply on my talk page) Do you like to get in India debates. The troubles with subhash bose dragged me in and Holywarrior and the fundywatch fiasco + aftermath. But they were all asingle thread of enmity, that wove itself in different ways. You seem to find all the blown-up disutes to play with. Why? Why bring it on yourself like this?Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism On My Userpage

Did you see vandalism on my userpage by User:Vgowda. Did you block him ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipu_Hero (talk • contribs)

I request the admin to take cognizance of this. Also if we compare this and [this, I dont see how Tipu Hero doesnt deserve to be blocked too. I hope VGowda wasnt blocked just because Tipu happened to complain first. Sarvagnya 17:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tipu hero was spouting extremely offensive anti-Hindu rants. If Sarvagnya and I both agree on something, it probably is a major issue, as I'm not the best of buds with Sarvagnya.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know NOTHING about any of his anti hindu rants. I havent come across any and I just checked his contribs and couldnt find any either. Bak, post links to the appropriate diffs if what you are saying is true. Nevertheless, I feel he needs to hauled up simply for his edits I've given the links above and for the fact that he seems to be a classic case of someone's sock(I just dont know who) Sarvagnya 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He called Sarvagnya a "Hindutva" sockpuppet. He said we were rabble rousing HindutvavadisBakaman _Bakatalk 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)