(Copied from Baka's talk page)He Baka, thanks for your attention on this matter. Actually I had watching Zafarnama's edits for a long time. It amazes me that after all personal attacks and POV edits he has the audacity of making that report. I also just noticed that he has been blocked earlier for his reverts on the Khalistan page. Anyway...thanks a lot and keep up the good work. Here are few more edits by Zafarnamah:
Zafarnamah's diffs:
Hi thanks for the suggestions, i will keep them in mind, but still i think the article in question Indian cast system is slightly biased and needs some references to evidence of why the cast system is evil. Please suggest. Ajaypal2k18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-), I have made some changes in the Tamil bhahmins oppression part, please review and if possible add more references. The outlook reference is asking for subscription.Ajaypal2k18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you made a critical comment about Islam sometime back. You are entitled to your views, but its most advisable to keep any discussion not concerning Wikipedia off Wikipedia. Keep focus on WP work, for such comments can and will offend others and disrupt Wikipedia. Rama's arrow22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Suggesting that you are anti-Semitic is not a personal attack." What is it then? My disliking of the state of Israel does not equate to a disliking of Jews in general. If you continue to suggest so, I will take this further, so please refrain. Thanks. BhaiSaabtalk00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but assuming I'm anti-semitic based on some arbitrary statistical probability is no excuse. I interact with Jews quite well and often, but thanks for the suggestion. BhaiSaabtalk00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subhase bose, you may be overreacting common stereotypes and prejudices. Please do not accuse others without concrete evidence, like any anti-Jewish comments or major personal attacks against Jews. And please do tag others as being anti-This and That, since all users harbor strong beliefs and emotions. Whether they show it in their edits is their choice. From you edits, comments, and even userpage, I have even noticed that you have your own strong beliefs that strong affect your edits.Mar de SinSpeak up!00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HRW may not be a 100% neutral source, but it is a reliable one. I have made sure to reword what they say, in a NPOV manner, and that's what matters. Just because it's not neutral doesn't mean it's not reliable Actually, it is quite difficult to find a 100% neutral source since most sources have bias. Mar de SinSpeak up!00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make any more attacks regarding what may or may not happen in the Middle East, the negative view of Islam and Muslims that you have, or anything else uncivil. I am not going to give you a warning, but will only ask you to be as kind as possible, from now on. Thank you very much, Mar de SinSpeak up!01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for your concerns on Anonymous editor's talkpage. Sorry if you feel like I'm trying to incriminate you, but my concerns there were because Haphar's concerns were not answered. Please feel free to ask any assistance or even to say hi on my talk page, and thanks for all of your concerns. बहुत बहुत थैंक्यू --Mar de SinSpeak up!02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have my full support. I will be there. You are doing a great job pal...keep up the good work. You will find plenty of support. The world is surviving because sane people far outnumber the insane ones. Syiem03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you'll be back once this paranoid accusation of sockpuppetry gets cleared up. Where are you from, anyway? If it's outside Austin then the Apache webserver logs should show different domains for yours and my ip addresses and that should clear things up.Netaji04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand. The sentence you deleted stated that Muslims are the majority and are being persecuted by the Hindus but then you delete the sentence under the same premise. Sorry for the ignorance but are you stating that the Hindus are being persecuted by the Muslim majority?I already forgot05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have a predilection of watching each other.
Citations have been provided... its a controversial statement by Sreekumar, hence under this section. Lets keep our gut feelings about incidents out and speak of the facts. --Geek197510:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making edit summaries such as the ones corresponding to this edit and this edit. You have been blocked for violating civility policies in the past. So you should know better. If you continue, you will be blocked again. --Woohookitty(meow)10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the article 3 times along with Geek1975's addition to the article. I can see your point, but to me, this doesn't read like vandalism. And honestly, I'm not sure what Geek1975's first language is but if it isn't English, then I can see where he could get confused and see where the article is saying what he thinks it is saying. I mean. English is my only language and yet it took several readings for me to see what you are saying and I'm a college graduate. :) --Woohookitty(meow)11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is to just be careful. You are close to breaking 3RR on that article if you don't consider Geek1975's edits to be vandalism. You've had enough blocks recently that I wouldn't even risk it if I were you. --Woohookitty(meow)11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just Neta's style- People whose POV is different from his own end up with some name or the other, and accused of vandalism.- Not based on facts but just anything to needle them. Haphar11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was put in as a response to Neta calling me a vandal for removing an line which did not have credible references. In fact he has since attempted to put more credible references in the Indian Nationalism article, which shows he knows that the issue is not vandalism. So if there is anyone making a personal attack it was Neta, and he is being warned for the same here. He has also deleted my response below to his comments, which is also not done, and which is not the first time he has done it. Consider this warning no 1, Haphar11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure in the case of source dispute is to put a fact tag. You deleted it. That's vandalism. My warning stands. Your warning is bogus as always.Netaji11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All what has been posted in 2006 riots is substantiated with citations... u have a problem with that then talk about it in its talk page... do not take liberty of threatening me directly in my talk page... are we understood??? My post is far from vandalism... on the other hand your are persisting with your threats... u like facts... I gave u facts... too hard for u to swallow its hardly my business.. --Geek197511:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just what are u trying to put up I am unable to follow... army was not deployed in a timely fashion... what I have posted is just that... why do u have so much problem with facts that implicate the state govt? --Geek197511:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting your "claim" backed by a dubious website is not vandalism. Please learn what vandalism is. Your warnings are not as per wiki ettiquette, please refrain from issuing warnings when there is a difference of opinion. Haphar 11:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting comments left on your page Haphar 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Please understand that someone removing poorly referenced lines in an article is not a vandal if his POV is different from yours.
Please do not give warnings or accuse whenever someone has a POV different from yours. You have reacted to the deletion comments which shows you do not consider it vandaslism and you continue to insinuate that it is vandalsim as well as an experiment. Your accusations and language are not civil, please keep them so. Haphar12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are a response to your bogus warning. also the onus of citing is if there is no reference, where the reference is not credible there is no "citation" required. Haphar12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sockpuppetry accusation is COMPLETELY BOGUS!!! Syien and that other guy ARE NOT MY SOCKPUPPETS! This is garbage. I had never even HEARD of these people prior to yesterday!!!Netaji19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not my sockpuppets! This is a campaign against me by BhaiSaab, Haphar and CiteCop who have an axe to grind against me!.Netaji19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
User Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a deliberate campaign of lies against me by users with an axe to grind. Please intervene. This is part of the agenda of a cabal of users. The only reason why I edit the same article as these users is because we looked at each others contribs page and decided to fix distortions put there by fundamentalists and racist anti-Hindus, that's all. Netaji19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Until the RFCU result comes back, you will remain blocked. Even if they are proved not to be your sockpuppets, I will apologise, but your block will be reduced to one week. Iolakana•T20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bring. It. On. Then I can report to the admin how, completely unprovoked, you insinuated that I was either a White Nationalist, a Fundamentalist Muslim, or a Marxist[9] and how you repeatedly engage in inappropriate or misinterpreted citations.[10][11][12][13][14] So yeah, let's bring in the authorities. With any luck, you'll get blocked for a month this time.
And you know something else, there's no "deliberate campaign" by a "cabal of users" against you. Until yesterday, I had never even HEARD of you, or BhaiSaab, or Haphar. You didn't know me from Adam and you implied that I was either a White Nationalist, a Fundamentalist Muslim, or a Marxist. Do you expect to make friends that way? Doesn't it tell you something that in the space of one day you received two week long bans for your activities on two different pages?
If I were a "racist anti-Hindu," why would I have provided that citation that credited Kanada with atomism? Unlike you, with your Indian nationalist POV, I care about accuracy and verifiability. That's why I look for the best possible sources, such as those two books on zero, and provide relevant quotations on the talk page. So readers know that the sources say what I say they do, unlike you, who either lies about what sources say[15][16][17] or cites dubious ones.[18]
Do you honestly think that magic crystal lady[19] is a better source than a prize-winning science journalist and a Harvard mathematician who knows Greek and Sanskrit?
"Magic crystal lady" is as reliable as potential white supremacists in academia with an agenda against Indians because they can;t stand our successes in the west.Netaji23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Abraham Foxman of the anti-Defamation league: "There is something sick in Academia". These so-called "Academics" in their zoos that they call 'departments' make up all sorts of crap and nonsense that target specific ethnic groups. Like that Mearshimer and Walt thing, where two anti-semites resurrected old blood libels by writing a "paper" suggesting the patent falsehood that Jews secretly "control America" and are trying to "direct US foreign policy" for the benefit of Israel. Now these types of "academics" have turned on Hindus. Not surprising considering we are working hard in this country and trying to achieve success like the Jewish communities. That is why they turn on us. They can't stand the fact that "non-Aryan" races can do just as well, if not better, than they can.Netaji02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is, you brought this upon yourself and you have no one to blame but yourself. And whether your ban lasts one week or two, you'll have deserved every second of it.
After the block expires, I will be reporting you for vandalism, personal attacks and insults, and other infractions also.Netaji22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm anti-Hindu? I'm the one who supplied a citation for "During [Aurangzeb's] reign, many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed, and many non-Muslims converted to Islam."[20] And not from some website, from a book—you know, those piles of paper that are glued together on one side—by a history professor at Duke published by the Cambridge University Press. And I added Munda to "the languages that India is home to".[21]
You've already called me a Fundamentalist Muslim White Nationalist Marxist. "Anti-Hindu" makes slur number 4. And I have little doubt you'll go for 5. CiteCop23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing of the sort. Merely stated that the canards you use are the same as the canards used by WN people, Marxists and Muslim Fundamentalists (who have ideologically allied with White Nationalists, read about August Kreis and the admiration of muslim terrorists by Timothy McVeigh; Many Neo-Nazis are converting to Islam). I have called you an anti-Hindu, which you are. It is not a slur, merely a statement of fact. I don;t mean you any malice, only ask that you attend diversity seminars and seek psychiatrical counsel for your bigotry. Racist bigotry is a psychological disorder and can be cured.Netaji00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been punished for personal attacks already. YOU need to be. I am working on that right now. There are ways even through a block.Netaji22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And when this lie is cleared up by the users you accuse of being my "sockpuppets" We will see about you. I am not a slave nigger. I am a nigger who bites back, mate.Netaji23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I'm proud of my race. If you WN people choose a historical pejoration to address my people we are perfectly within our rights to use it among ourselves. There is no connotation of discrimination as we are addressing it among equals as equals. This is a word that you people invented. It's not our fault that you feel uncomfortable when we use it among ourselves to remind us that you people used it to describe us (and still do, amongst yourselves).Netaji23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless YOUR ancestors were carried across the oceans IN CHAINS AGAINST THEIR WILL AND YOUR FAMILY SPENT THE NEXT SEVERAL GENERATIONS PICKING COTTON OR CUTTING CANE YOU DON'T GET TO USE THAT WORD.
SOME OF MY ANCESTORS WERE CARRIED ACROSS IN CHAINS. I am a shudra and collaterally related to the some Yadav Bihari clans. Yadavs were enslaved by the Dutch in the 19th century and carried across the Atlantic IN CHAINS to Guyana and Suriname to do slave work. Gujarati Banias were carried by the British IN CHAINS to Southern Africa for slave work also. They (the Yadavs of South America) allied with the blacks who had rebelled against their masters in the US and retreated there (they were called moors) and, to this day, former Hindu slaves reside in those two South American Countries. SO I DEFINITELY GET TO CALL MYSELF A NIGGER! British and Dutch slave masters referred to us as NIGGERS. During the Indian intellectual awakening we were SMART NIGGERS. Thus, I AM PERFECTLY WITHIN MY RIGHTS AS A BROWN MAN to use the term NIGGER to myself or my people as a reminder of how we were persecuted, enslaved and ethnically cleansed by the white man. So there.Netaji23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am black. My people are black. Our pantheon has black gods (Rama, Krishna, Shiva all black). We are proud of being black. We represent the black man. I am also brown in the sense of a shade of black.Netaji23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already have. I'm darker skinned than most African-Americans and so it's not a problem. I have also been to Jamaica and the West Indies and we used 'nigger' amongst ourselves while playing cricket.Netaji00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, East Austin has more Hispanics than Blacks, and I look pretty much like a really dark Puerto-Rican. So no problems there either. Lol!Netaji00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock request reason:
While the sockpuppetry charge is blatantly false, the others are not and some punishment is ok, though one week is too harsh. What is blatantly unfair is the following:
User Terry J-Ho has engaged in the same kind of "capitalization" in edit summaries that you have punished me for and has not been dealt with. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence/2006_revision&action=history here.Summary dated:
"19:59, 17 August 2006 TerryJ-Ho Talk ontribs This is the reference - DO NOTTTTTTT PUT IN THAT FISIUSA LINK - IT NOT A NPOV source".I can also provide arguments and evidence that user Geek1975 is a sock puppet of user Terry J-Ho. Again, he gets away with it. This is grossly unfair.While I have engaged in needling User CiteCop and am being punished, he has also engaged in personal attacks against ME and has not been punished. See his contrib history using your popup or any other admin tool at your disposal. This is also grossly unfair.
Netaji23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new request. I will keep making them until justice has been done. Like I told CiteCop. I will not be a house nigger.Netaji00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People need to stop using this page to attack Subhash and vice versa. Why you guys all feel the need to constantly attack each other just baffles me. Wikipedia is not a message board. It's not a place where it's considered acceptable to attack others. At this point, further attacks are just going to jeopardize your ability to edit. That's all it's going to do. It's not constructive in the least. It doesn't lead to better articles or greater understanding between disparate groups. All it does is lead to more anger. So. Stop. Immediately. Or else I will start blocking people for their conduct on this page or the page will be locked until the user is eligible to edit again. --Woohookitty(meow)07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for intervening. I will naturally not instigate any attacks if the other parties involved agree not to do the same.Netaji07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I assert again that I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPETEER OF ANYBODY!!!!!!! Please carry out whatever RFCU you need to. I maintain that CiteCop knowingly made a false accusation.Netaji08:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here [23] and here making an irrelevant edit to a talk page (trying to recruit fundamentalist elements into a cabal IMHO). Report this as harassment.Spanking from here wasn't enough. Watching contribs page.Netaji08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No incitement, I had put the comments on the talk page several weeks ago ( 26th July), yesterday Neta removed it [24] i put them back. I think unilaterally removing comments on talk pages is not a done thing, if you dispute the comments, or if I have put up lies please discuss. Also you are free to watch my contibs page it is there for tha very purpose.- Also would like to point out that words like "spanking" are not civil and this is the second time you have used it. Please do not going forward Haphar08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is another guy in my department who expressed an interest in editing on wikipedia some weeks ago. I have forwarded information to that effect to an admin.
2. I do not believe that anon users don't count as sock puppets.
So he expressed an interest in editing the same articles as you, and he decides to join two days after your block begins? Anyone would admit that is highly suspicious, or a very large coincidence. And it seems he was familiar (or claimed to be familiar) with Wikipedia policies (as well as their shortcuts) as soon as his second edit. IP's used to evade a username block or violations of 3rr count as sockpuppets. BhaiSaabtalk04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at his contribs and he hasn't edited all the articles as me. Too bad. I'll clear up this RFCU. You know perfectly well that this sockpuppetry accusation (like the last one) is bogus. After he block clears, I will ask for an investigation of you because these bogus sockpuppetry accusations count as stalking and can be construed as personal attacks. At best, this is worth a complex investigation.Netaji04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the IP hasn't edited the same articles as you - that would be plainly obvious, but all the articles edited by that IP (two of them) have been edited quite frequently by you before. The IP also has the habit of including words in parenthesis in the edit summaries, something that you do as well. BhaiSaabtalk04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man arguments. I did an nslookup of the ip address in question:
nslookup 128.83.131.139
Server: 192.168.1.1
Address: 192.168.1.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
139.131.83.128.in-addr.arpa name = twist.ph.utexas.edu.
dns2.cso.uiuc.edu internet address = 128.174.5.104
chisos.ots.utexas.edu internet address = 128.83.185.39
chinati.ots.utexas.edu internet address = 128.83.185.44
marianas.its.utexas.edu internet address = 69.20.4.146
The machine is called "twist". It is a public access server that any of the 500 students in my department could have used. I certainly didn't, since I haven't been to my department in days. Check the UT shuttle route calendar and you will see that the shuttles aren't running today or the last few days and, since parking in UT is too expensive and rare, I'm pretty much stuck at home. Senior students (who get a higher stipend and so are wealthier) are not so restricted.
As of this moment, I have ended an irc chat session with several wikipedia admins on #wikipedia-in. The user accused of being my "sockpuppet" was there logged in from the ip address while I was in my home computer. We have established that we are 2 different people and not sockpuppets.Netaji07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty funny story you typed out there. Note that this user signs a "name" for the first time after I posted this on Sockpuppet noticeboard. Also, notice the similarity in warnings that you and this IP gives: [25][26]. I believe you're lying about this not being your sockpuppet. BhaiSaabtalk01:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We corresponded on IM a couple of times before regarding wikipedia rules and regs and methods. Plus, I'm sure he has been looking at my contribs history. Sorry, but circumstantial evidence and alleged similarities do not change the simple fact that we have categorically established that we are different people who were at two different places at the same time with wikipedia admins as witnesses in an irc chat session. So too bad.Netaji02:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the irc chat transcript (actual names have been remove in order to preserve privacy)
How? Now you're turning paranoid. Since you have made an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't proved anything (largely because you are wrong). You have violated the good faith assumption rule of wikipedia and have made accusations that you know are false.This violation will definitely be reported.Netaji03:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually UT has quite a few Indians. It wouldn't be surprising if there were more than two Hindutva sympathizers on campus. UT has around 15000 people and has at least 3-400 Indians.BakamanBakatalk03:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The users involved with Subhash bose and Subhash bose himself just will not cease their arguing. Going to protect this page for 2-3 more days. --Woohookitty(meow)08:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Hkelkar is the new mask for Netaji, they edit from same blocks of IP's, same university, use same sources, same authoritative tone,edit almost the same set of articles, for a complete beginner - HKelkar knows a lot of Wikipedia templates to leave on other users, I have added a few more examples of the way they both use logic and how they react with almost the same words.The evidence using IRC chat (that they have used) can always be faked ..simply use another chatting medium at the same time (telephone) and direct another fake person. TerryJ-Ho14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidenceSimilarities in reasoning using Logic:Netaji:
The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Hindutva#Wikindian.27s_disgusting_attempts_to_excrete_hateHKelkar
The very claim that RSS is fascist is a POV statement unless it is qualified as a claim, since there are ample arguments to refute their alleged "fascism". Thus, you are gaming the argument by a circular logic. You have assumed the very thing you are trying to establish and that won;t work. It is like saying A->B because A->B. Munje went abroad, then founded an org in India. Association does not prove ideology.Hkelkar 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Nehru_referred_to_RSS_as_an_Indian_face_of_Fascism
Similarity in reactions:Netaji
I'm afraid attacking the source is the last resort of a losing argument. I have not attacked any sources, merely questioned them. I admit that generally Christianpost is partisan. Since a non-Hindu site has not attacked a hindu organization in this case, it bears mentioning. Plus, the article is written by a non-Christian. The thesis was submitted through Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Hkelkar 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
HKelkar
I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [27]
Ok? I also edit in that same manner, and use similar edit summaries. Am I a sock? I have 18x as many contribs as terryJho who is accused of being Geek1975's sockpuppeteer.`BakamanBakatalk
Please abstain from Troll and Meatpuppet behavior.You have already mentioned that one needs to make as much noise possible to influence admins.I believe each time, there is a complaint against Subhash your comment is the very first to appear on that page.This account will once again go into investigations even if the result had been inconclusive, it was not negative either TerryJ-Ho17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a sad joke. TerryJ-Ho's trying to make noise to get people blocked who expose his lies and his true intentions.Netaji20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Neta did you see Baka sock?. Geek tried to get me blocked for "being a sock of Neta". Rama's arrow, Ragib, and Deepujoseph made sure it failed. I have almost 2200 edits now, making me no sock, but a full-fledged contributor.BakamanBakatalk20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YEs, I've been thinking about changing my username. Once my present block has been lifted, I'll do the needful, thanks.Netaji20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little swamped right now coz semester is starting, but I'll see what I can do. I'm willing to change my login if all my contribs can be moved there.Netaji13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me. To change your username, just go to WP:CHU and post
=== MyNewUsername ===
Please change Subhash bose to MyNewUsername. Thank you. ~~~~ at the bottom. Don't put brackets/apostrophes/etc. around anything. All of your preferences/contribs/etc. will be moved, you just have to move your userpage and talkpage. Mar de SinSpeak up!13:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. I saw the page. The page also says that I can achieve the same effective goal by just changing my sig, which I just have.Will that suffice?Shiva's Trident13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)(This is my new sig)[reply]
Well, the username Subhash bose is still inappropriate as it is a real person, so by WP:USERNAME your username itself is inappropriate and should be changed. If you really don't want to change your username, then I guess you'd have to see an administrator. Mar de SinSpeak up!13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It WAS a real person. Actually, Subhash bose is a fairly common name. Both netaji & Subhash bose together denotes THE Subhash Bose, but I have removed the nickname. In any case, if admin INSIST that I have to change my userid then, of course, I will. I need a few days of leeway though because, like I said, I'm rather swamped and will not be doing much wikistuff for a few days so as to cooperate in the process. This weekend should be a good time for me to start the proceedings.Shiva's Trident13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the the RFCU showed that you were not responsible for the activities of RSudarshan and Syiem, they have been unblocked. Thus, the 14 day block of Kilo-Lima is no longer applicable and Woohookitty's block expired yesterday, so you are now free to edot. Blnguyen | rant-line00:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll be cordial. Conversely, I will report any acts of incivility against myself immediately without delay or demur. I think that's fair, don't you?Netaji01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. But on the other hand, please don't do what you and others have done on here, i.e. that if someone makes an attack, well then you can too. It doesn't work that way. --Woohookitty(meow)02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? it's not a personal attack. Nor is it incivil. Lots of people in India do, point of fact, talk like that. The culture of Bollywood cinema has made the "Gawaar-boli" a phenomenon of sorts. It's hardly crude. Many people write poetry in "Rustic" languages like Maghi Maithili, Awadhi etc.Shiva's Trident15:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gawaar Boli (Rustic talk) could be seen as contempt of the serious issues which WP deals with.Such borderline behaviour is not expected of serious users specially when we are most often in confrontation with each other.I will not write any more on this.You may as well have the last word TerryJ-Ho16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please go by the rules, the process asks for the icon to be put on the top and not bottom of the page - until you are cleared TerryJ-Ho15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the rules apply when a closed case has been reopened. Why don;t you get an admin to contact me. If he says I should put the tag on top then I will. I will only listen to a bona fide admin on this issue.Shiva's Trident15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plz refrain from issuing Bogus warnings.False accusations are WP:NPA Attack.Always specify your charges with diffs.This was regarding your edit [28]. HW12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said up above, it doesn't work that way. This isn't tit for tat. One bad action doesn't cancel another. Subhash has been told that he has no more leeway in terms of attacks and civility. Nothing stops that. There is such a thing as staying cool when the editing gets hot. Someone misbehaving is not an excuse to misbehave yourself. If we had that philosophy, we'd have chaos here. --Woohookitty(meow)01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subhash:
Thanks for making an effort to cite in the Indian Nationalism page. However, I have an objection to this [29] edit. Note that [30] is still unresolved. I thought that you had agreed to hold off on discussion of Dr. Elst for a while. To go ahead and make additional citations of his material seems to be a violation of an agreement in good faith. Please do consider this and find an alternative citation. Thanks. Hornplease05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we have established Elst's scholarly legitimacy in the sense that all of HIS writings (see his page) has citations and references to well-known authors. Plus, he is qualified (by PhD) to talk about Indian Social Studies. The intent behind that little witch hunt of yours was to discredit him. Plus, the posts made by many users (not you though) was defamatory in nature and a BLP violation can be reported (not you, though).Shiva's Trident12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont remember the defamatory posts, but, if so, they should be deleted from the discussion, and I suggest you do so, or I will do so at some point in the next week. However, the whole point of the discussion was to suggest that his scholarly legitimacy is, without being defamatory, simply insufficient for him to be a cited source in an encyclopaedia. We paused the discussion. We can resume it, but in the meantime I will ask you to return to the status quo ante and not cite him any further, and to remove any citations that you have added since the discussion went on hold - which was done at your request. Hornplease07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, an article on WP doesnt mean in itself that he is a reliable source. David Irving has an article.
Second, even if he is cited, which I am coming to doubt having read some of his stuff since the discussion, at most he can be cited with qualification in articles specifically about Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc etc, which is self-professed area of expertise, and as a representative of a viewpoint that some believe is unfairly excluded from mainstream academia. An article on Indian nationalism has to have more mainstream citations, especially since we shouldnt have any major POV issues there. (I still dont understand why you need to cite him at all; please reconsider the entire drift of that article.) Hornplease
While I appreciate the effort taken by you in finding a reference for the claim of a caste system among Christians, the extra text you added, is a copyvio from the Britannica website. I have not reverted it, in order to avoid triggering an edit war. Could you please rewrite the paragraph? Thank you. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netaji, glad to see you are back. I have been travelling so I did not get a chance to participate in that interesting sockpuppetry debate. Just saw your message so I stopped by to thank you. You are doing a great job...keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs you and if you need any help leave a message. I only logon off and on. But I will respond as soon as I see your message. Syiem22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netaji, I have contributed to Indian nationalism in the past and was very pleased to see the work that you did on the article despite opposition from Kenneththennyson and Citecop.
I have been engaged in Indian martial arts, which I solely have had to manage against two opponents, out of which one seems to be of academic nature and the other Kennethtennyson seems crazy. That was the reason why I could'nt contribute to the article. Freedom skies02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of the things I noticed is that no one seems to be making uses of Google Book search[31], this tool can be used to find text directly from books by academic, verifiable sources which act as arguments enders, especially when citation is needed. Please mention it to fellow editors on Indian nationalism, they can use it to cite for Citecop and Kenneththennyson. Freedom skies02:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your past edits to Indian Nationalism, you have claimed that Nalanda Taxila was not a University in the modern sense so you removed it. Isn;t this a double standard then?
I will leave the discussion of whether Taxila was a university or not to Profs. Altekar, Marshall & Thomas.
What I took issue with was the unsubstantiated claim that Taxila "is regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university". According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, providing sources is "especially needed" for superlatives and absolutes, such as statements that something is the first of its kind.
If the statement had read, "Taxila was a centre of learning from the 5th century BCE," I would have been fine with it. In fact, just to show you that I'm not an "anti-Hindu racist," I'll add that myself—with a proper source.
But NOOO…YOU insisted repeatedly that not only is Taxila "considered by many historians as the world's oldest university," but "the world's oldest university (in the modern sense)"[32] and that this was mentioned by Megasthenes, Romila Thapar and John Marshall.
That passage in the "Ancient Greece" article that you quote makes no similarly superlative or absolute claims about "world's oldest university" that would demand citation.
Hi, You left me a Warning saying I had made a personal attack and at the same time removed the edit from your page.I do not appreciate both of your acts.My first comment was not intended to target you but was a general comment on Hindutva historians, unless you proclaim to be one.Please abstain from such acts.TerryJ-Ho09:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted to do so,as soon as I can figure out how to type in Hindi properly (my fonts and locales are set up, but my Hindi typing skills are atrocious). Plus, I've been toying with the idea of doing something in the Bangla Wikipedia as well (which is in far worse shape). Thanks for putting it in my mind though.Shiva's Trident13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indenting) Hello. Sorry you took my statement as twisting your words. If I appeared to be insulting/attacking you, then I apologise. That was not my intention. I should have explained better as I later explained to Bakaman. Hope there are no hard feelings. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Dr. Kak himself for a few sources, and he has written that if I took a look here[35] I should find a lot more info.
Plus, as for nationalist/biased POV, he said that his work has also appeared in many encyclopedias. For example, Stanley Wolpert - edited Encyc. of India (Scribner's, 2006). You can see the list of topics there at this site[36].
As you know, Wolpert is a very conservative historian, and not a supporter of "Hindu nationalism."
Make use of the list, and don't let anyone vandalize cited material because it's out of their comfort zone, I'll be involved in a tour and may not be able to do so for the next two or three days, but you should be abe to find a bit more of citations and other material using Dr. Kak's information, as well as cite the Wolpert endorsement if Dr. Kak.
I have blocked you for one week for revert-warring on Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Despite receiving several warnings from various admins and being blocked multiple times, you have not ceased your disruptive activities. Consider this block your final warning. Any more disruption after this block expires and you will be indefinitely blocked. --Srikeit(Talk | Email)19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I was very careful NOT to violate 3RR rule. Plus, I believed that the edit made by Holywarrior was a violation of [[WP:BLP]]. I DID NOT DELETE THE EDIT, BUT REWORDED IT and included it in another section. please believe me it was NOT MY INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN A REVERT WAR AT ALL and I was simply trying to mend the article WITHOUT COMMITTING VANDALISM. I will post the diffs in a few minutes, but a WEEK LONG BLOCK is TOO HARSH. PLEASE SEE INTO THE MATTER. This is most unreasonable.Thx}}[[User:Subhash bose|Shiva's Trident]] 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This punishment is unacceptable. Please believe me I did not commit any personal attacks, incivility, or any actions that are characteristic of a revert war. plus, the other party involved, User:Holywarrior engaged in an endless stream of attacks and veiled insinuations and walks off scott free!! What kind of injustice is this????Shiva's Trident20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the edit was a BLP violation and so 3rr did not apply. If you can prove otherwise then why did you not start a discussion in the talk page, or contact me to discuss?????Shiva's Trident20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did not cite the policy at all while you were reverting. Nevertheless, HW's addition seemed to appropriately sourced so BLP does not apply. BhaiSaabtalk20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of his edits were NOT properly sourced. Point of fact, i did not delete his sources. I merely reworded them to be in conformity with the articles that he HAD sourced. I will contact as many admins and people by whatever media (email, irc, im) in order to resolve this matter.Shiva's Trident20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to answer your question about why I did not discuss this with you: many of our previous discussions have ended with you accusing me of being anti-Semitic, and so I feel that any other unnecessary discussions with you may not be particularly conducive. BhaiSaabtalk20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On top of everything, There are several complaints against HW for his disruptive edits, and he gets away scot-free?? This is blatant partiality! If you think that a block will prevent me from pleading my case adequately, then think again.Shiva's Trident20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legitimate block. The only reason why I didn't block you is because I'd blocked you last time and I wanted another set of eyes to take a look. You've shown no inkling to follow our rules. And I haven't seen any improvement since the last block. And honestly, after your unblock request is decided on, I plan on protecting this page given the past history of this page while you've been blocked. --Woohookitty(meow)20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a legitimate block because certain parties have gamed the system in order to insert weasel words and other POV and defamatory edits into articles and then get me blocked when I point them out. if you want to hear my side of the situation instead of lash out at me simply because you don;t like my edits then plz reply.Shiva's Trident20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your post just violates more policies. It's assuming bad faith because you are assuming that I haven't read your edits (which I have). Unless you can see my computer, you can't say what I've read and what I haven't. To assume that I haven't is to assume bad faith. The main point is. You've been blocked several times. You should be avoiding anything approaching an edit war right now. Did you violate 3RR? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is that you shouldn't even be approaching the rule. I mean, what's the big hurry? Wait a day and then revert or make whatever changes you think should be made. You know that you have several admins watching your actions. And then when someone does block you, you respond by attacking the admin who did the blocking, any admin who supports the blocking as well as other users. And then you wonder why you keep getting blocked. It's for posts like the one I am responding to here. You seem to like to argue. That works well on alot of the parts of the internet but not here. Just stop. --Woohookitty(meow)20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm just a little agitated right now because I fell that I have been treated unfairly. Will you be on #wikipedia-en? I'd like to discuss this matter with you one-on-one if possible. Thank you.Shiva's Trident21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are agitated, then I would suggest taking a few days off. I know some of us hard core Wikipedians find this hard to believe, but the site will not go to pot if we leave for a few days. :) I sincerely think that's some of the problem here. Even when you are blocked, you don't just take some time to cool off and relax. I'd suggest trying it. --Woohookitty(meow)03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't been blocked already, you would have after the report on WP:PAIN. This war between you, Holywarrior and Bakaman is going to stop either with all of you deciding to cool off or by your blocks finally becoming permanent because we have no further patience for it. There would be many editors happy to help with the article and work on reaching a compromise for your concerns, but everyone involved must stop the edit wars, fake warnings and incivility. If you take a gander at my talk page, I'm available via intant messengers and also on IRC if you'd like to talk about resolving this. Shell babelfish23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. It's bedtime for me now but if you'd leave your IM id(s) and the servers and irc channels (presumably #wikipedia-en or others) where you hang out I'll get in touch with you after.I'd like to contend that a week long block is too harsh, on account of the fact that I have been careful to not engage in anything that can be construed as a specific personal attack, and have only made edits to protect wikipedia policy in this case (at least, as I saw it) and should not be punished with this much severity on account of what I believe are , in some part, disagreements with certain editors and attacks of which I have been the victim.Shiva's Trident00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is how Ancient India's scientific achievements were attributed.
CiteCop: that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.
Freedom skies: Would be glad to, these links [37][38][39][40] were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.
“
Ancient India’s contributions to astronomy are well known and documented.
”
I consulted The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy[41] as well as The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy[42] and neither of them corroborated Kak's claims.
This hardly qualifies as "well known and documented".
“
Calculation of Earth’s circumference.
”
The word "circumference" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“
Theorizing about gravity.
”
The word "gravity" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“
Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world.
”
Neither "Pakudha" nor "Katyayana" appears anywhere in the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“
Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit.
”
The word "sapekshavadam" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“
Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west."
”
This quote by Aryabhata appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“
These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics." [43][44]
”
This quote by A.L. Basham appears in none the four Kak papers cited for this section.
At the barest minimum, the very least that one ought to expect is that, when a source is cited for a quotation, that the quotation appear somewhere in the cited source.
some user, hornplease removed all your comment from michael witzel talk page. [45] I dont know whether this is allowed or not. Check out the wikipolicies if you want to restore your comments.nids(♂)21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't believe that it is a BLP violation, as there is no open defamation. However, I'm blocked now and my longime sparring partner Hornplease is really bilking that. Not much I can do about it until I'm unblocked.Shiva's Trident21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The removal from the talk page per WP:BLP was done on the 29th of August, when you were an active member. Scrolling up, it appears you were not blocked till the 3rd of September. Once again, please do avoid making spurious allegations. This sort of thing does not help you. Hornplease07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really wasn't a need for the dothead bashing comment on Kennethtennyson's page or some of the other funny comments you've been leaving. Just gives more ammo for "things" to happen. [www.sulekha.com Sulekha] is a good place for the dothead thing. Be more like Hkelkar, always keeping the moral upper hand.BakamanBakatalk01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your sentiments, lekin jaane bhi do yaar. At this point I've done all I can do. Just keep a cool eye on things, that's all. As it is, semester has started and I'm in Dicus's field theory course so lots of assignments to do. Tumhaara to coursework ho gayaa so you can hang around here more often.
Hello Subhash bose,
There is was an edit war on the mauryan empire and ashoka articles on account of a contributor who insists on positing that ashoka was descended from greeks, in spite of what is stated in the ashokavadana. There is no evidence whatsoever on that, and as proof, this user insists on stating that this is mainstream opinion and that it is supported by the speculation of a colonial historical commentator. I was wondering if you could consider the discussion on this an join me in appealing to the sys op who froze the edit war with the false contents. I would appreciate your perspective and perhaps your support. Thank you.
Not bad, getting established editors to clean up for one [46]. One does wonder why someone with over 2000 edits needs to do this ? Specially when the other party has been more than able to take care of such trivial stuff. Unless there is something more to it than meets the eye. Haphar01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all your help in removing all the fluff from here. Unfortunately, Haphar has added more fluff than anyone else so far.As always, his garrulous rants and desperate pleas for attention belie his nature.Shiva's Trident06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see any requests for help. And the user has been adpet at removing/ deleting a lot of damaging ( for him) comments from his talk page in the past. There has been some claim of "brotherhood" made by the user in the past too- which did turn out to be false. For someone who was accused of being a sockpuppet of this very user it is suspicious behaviour. Haphar01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Quote from my post who was accused . So there was no name calling there, but you have been quick to pull the trigger. One can have 30000 edits ( for example on Ladoo, Peda, Sandesh). but it is not appropriate for someone who has been suspected of sockpuppetry of a user, to be removing content from that user's talk or user page. Which is what i am commenting on.Please don't be quick to resort to name calling.Haphar01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLease don't be quick to make policy decisions for wikipedia. There is no policy against him cleaning up this page, regardless of past sockpuppetry accusations that have rather thoroughly been disproven, and only rehashed by sad trolls with little better to do than bother other editors.Shiva's Trident06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one keep touting one's edit count as well as have to show what all one has created, then one must have some doubts in one's own mind. No comments on another's user or talk page should be removed unless you are an admin or the user is unable to edit his/her own talk page. Haphar01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the user does not object to the removals, and I do not object at all. I appreciate his efforts in getting rid of drivel from a certain someone.Shiva's Trident06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is your comment to the three Sikh related articles I created? Sukh liked them. I touted my edit count because its kind of stupid to accuse users with triple your edit count of being socks, and my contribs because you questioned them (someones watching too much Bollywood ).BakamanBakatalk01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is of your removing posts on this user talk page. The edit count can be quadruple, it does not reflect on quality. Edit count is no proof of whether one is or is not a sockpuppet. Edit count "can" also be seen as a direct count of how gainfully employed a person is. Films still have an artistic connotation, hardly what can be said of sweets. Haphar02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sweets are more welcomed in Indian houses, hardly the same can be said about Bollywood films, which have gone south since Lagaan and Taarzan and have turned into Hollywood ripoffs and item girl shows.BakamanBakatalk02:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I fully endorse, support and thank Baka for all his edits to my talk page, so Haphar's rants gather no merit.Plus, talk pages can be edited by anybody so long as they are communications to the user in question (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.My bad.Shiva's Trident06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your language continues to be uncivil and accusatory.Please refrain from accusations and uncivility. Losing the moral high ground is a sign of a argument lost Haphar08:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subhash attempted to edit my comment and make it appear that I had left an unsigned comment- [48]
sorry I couldn;t help you out old chap. But the discussion on Hindu mathematicians seems to be going well. Plus, I'm not 100% sure about Hindu Athletes.Shiva's Trident19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i am interested to know, if you have any idea, that does Pakistan have the facilities to enrich U-235 to 99.9%. Also, what, in your view, will be the critical mass for a sustained chain reaction at this level of purity. {Do you remember the news when two pakistani terrorists were caught in Bareilly with 99.9% enriched Uranium. This was reported on the front page of Times of India for a day but was later censored.}nids(♂)23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phenomenologically speaking, the critical mass depends on physical dimensions and scattering cross section, fudge factor etc.Bigger density typically means smaller critical mass as there are more fissile atoms packed in. For pure U-235 it's around 50-60 kgs I think.Shiva's Trident02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to your email to me (I'm very very careful about giving my actual address out. It's not you. Past bad experiences with people ceaselessly emailing me). I work overnight and sleep during the day. So I literally just saw Haphar's comment. And besides, as I've said before, stop comparing. It doesn't work that way. I don't sit here and make up a scorecard of who has said what and who has been blocked what. And besides, the comment you sent to me isn't blockable. Is it ill advised? Probably. And I'll address that. But #1 you are assuming that I'm not going to do anything about it even though I hadn't even read the comment yet (which is assuming bad faith, which you do alot). And #2, as I said, I don't compare people. One person's bad comments don't "cancel out" another ones. In the end, I don't think that overall, Haphar's comments have been as blockable as yours. I mean if you think that "Absolutely.- But only for 1 day. :-)" is blockable, I'm not sure you know what is blockable.
You might or might not realize this, but this isn't the first POV battle I've gotten into. And the "sides" almost always see the other side's comments as more severe than theirs just because the other side isn't their side. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. That's how debates and arguments are. It's how in a war, what one side does is ok for them but if the other side does it, it's a war crime. That's where admins come in. We're neutral. Are we perfect? No. But you know subhash, even though you've been blocked much more than Haphar, he's made several comments on how "light" we treat you. Again, that's typical in a situation such as this. My job is to balance the two and I think I do ok on that. But again, this isn't an equal comparison. I just don't see the other side's comments as being as blockable as yours. Haphar has been blocked in the past. And he will be in the future if he crosses that line. --Woohookitty(meow)01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the username change, and I wasn't threatening you in any way. WP:USERNAME is an important policy on Wikipedia. Your account could have been indef banned when it was created, but you went on to edit because nobody noticed. All the current logs of your account have been shifted to the new account name and I have also moved your user page and user talk pages respectively. I see that you are an educated person, and you can contribute to the project in a very good way; but I must request you to assume good faith with others, and mind the WP:NPOV policy, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Revert warring with other editors will onl make things difficult for you and other users, the best choice is to produce proper citations for your edits and to source them properly. My best wishes. --Nearly Headless Nick13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read his book on the Aryan-invasion "myth" and while it was very scholarly he kind of broke down towards the end and started saying some jingoistic stuff. However his research itself seems top-notch. Arrow74006:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which machine are you using now? The one in basement or upar wala maala.Dr.Jekyll Bose or Mr. Hyde Kelkar.Don't pollute the Jewish race by claiming you are one Mustafa Bhai
A new project has been created, to exclusively deal with Maharashtra and Marathi-related articles. You are invited to join the WikiProject Maharashtra. The project aims to develop Marathi and Maharashtra-related articles to Featured Article-status. You can join the WikiProject by adding your username here. However, don't forget to visit the project page. This is of course, a sister project of Portal:Maharashtra. Come, join us in developing Wikipedia.
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! --Bhadani17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Header3 logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anti-Brahmanism, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Center complex systems.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Center complex systems.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Image:Hindu swastika.svg) with 
){kind=link}
){kind=link}