Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shiva's Trident: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:51, 21 August 2006 editBhaiSaab (talk | contribs)6,082 edits Unblock← Previous edit Revision as of 19:52, 21 August 2006 edit undoShiva's Trident (talk | contribs)2,622 edits [] caseNext edit →
Line 99: Line 99:
|} |}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:Not my sockpuppets! This is a campaign against me.] 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :Not my sockpuppets! This is a campaign against me by BhaiSaab, Haphar and CiteCop who have an axe to grind against me!.] 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)




==Unblock== ==Unblock==

Revision as of 19:52, 21 August 2006

Archive

Archives


1 2


Thanks!

(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:

, , , , , , Syiem 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Friendly warning

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 Misplaced Pages off Misplaced Pages. Keep focus on WP work, for such comments can and will offend others and disrupt Misplaced Pages. Rama's arrow 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
OK.Netaji 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not refer to other Wikipedians as "Islamofascist users." BhaiSaab 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time you've made a veiled personal attack trying to say I'm anti-Semitic. I suggest you use caution with your words. BhaiSaab 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"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. BhaiSaab 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting that another user is anti-Semitic, especially without evidence, constitutes as a personal attack and/or uncivility. Mar de Sin 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. BhaiSaab 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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 Sin 00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I never made attacks against Jews. I am a Zionist.Netaji 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

HRW

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 Sin 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be nice

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 Sin 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Sin 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Syiem's 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. Syiem 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been locked for editing. You will find me there as soon as it is available for editing. Syiem 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

wikibreak

I'll be working on my golf game for a couple o days. Ask Bharatveer or Nids for help I guess.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslim pop in Kashmir

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 forgot 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your user page, honest mistake. Thanks for clearing the misunderstanding, I now understand your point.I already forgot 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

distorted facts... what a joke

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. --Geek1975 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please

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 10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Unless I am reading the article wrong, the Telegraph citation you removed here basically says what the user says it says. --Woohookitty 11:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Haphar 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Warned Haphar once for personal attack above. One more to go before I report him.Netaji 11:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above comment was put in as a repsonse 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 credilbe references in the Indian Nationalism article, which shows he knows that the issue is not vandalis. So if there is anyone making a personal attack it was Neta, and he is being warned for the smae 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, Haphar 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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.Netaji 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

refrain from foisting your personal POVs

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.. --Geek1975 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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? --Geek1975 11:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

just how do we contact admin... hope u can show a new user around... I might have some things to report too!! --Geek1975 11:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings and lack of understanding

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. Haphar 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bogus warning.Netaji 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Haphar 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Another bogus post.Netaji 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Posts are not bogus, they either exist or they do not. Haphar 12:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week

Per this post, you been blocked for 1 week. This is probably your last chance. --Woohookitty 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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!!!Netaji 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. CiteCop 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not my sockpuppets! This is a campaign against me by BhaiSaab, Haphar and CiteCop who have an axe to grind against me!.Netaji 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Shiva's Trident (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Uset Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a delinberate campaign of lies against me. Please intervene.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Uset Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a delinberate campaign of lies against me. Please intervene. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Uset Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a delinberate campaign of lies against me. Please intervene. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Uset Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a delinberate campaign of lies against me. Please intervene. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Netaji 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have posted that you dispute the sockpuppet findings on the ANI page. BhaiSaab 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: