Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 23 August 2006

Archive1 July - August 7 06' (30kB)

Archive2 August 8 - August 14 (?kB)

I give myself the authority to remove bogus warning templates from my page Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Can you archive records of BhaiSaab's views and biases? I have a feeling they will be needed. Thanks.Netaji 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look no further than Blnguyen's talk page, archives 16, 17, and present talk page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

My 3RR's are up, so can't revert anymore until tomorrow. If he violates 3RR then I'll report him, of course.Netaji 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

I don't see what's wrong; you never notified me of the 3rr report you filed. BhaiSaab 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I got blocked before i filed it.

Actually you got blocked after. BhaiSaab 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No before I had a chance to finish it. Of course since you can waste so much time looking through all my diffs, you might have time to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I guess you find persecuting people for AfD votes more fun.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not being persecuted at all. BhaiSaab 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, I'm supposed to believe that you edit warring with myself and Netaji on the RSS article when you have no history of editing India articles is coincidence? I'm supposed to believe that you putting warnings on my page after an admin told you to lay off is coincidence? Really. When was the last time you made a constructive edit to a page, not disputed by us (including Netaji & Usher).Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just today, when I added information to the RSS article and 2002 Gujarat violence - check the histories. BhaiSaab 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No I think it was actually perhaps yesterday when you made a constructive edit on Pluto. None since, because everytime you spar with us, it is merely a content dispute.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great. Go check the histories - I don't really have to prove "constructivism" to anyone if they can't see it for themselves. BhaiSaab 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

File a 3RR complaint

In case I get blocked, why don;t you file a 3RR complaint against BhaiSaab for the 2002 Gujarat Violence revision article on the same grounds as his filing for mine? Thanks a bunch.Netaji 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, do watch both articles as they seem to be his standard hangouts for soilings (in case I get blocked).Netaji 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys are pretty funny. BhaiSaab 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would file but I think he only reverted twice. But the 3RR probably will fail anyways.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! A good admin blocked him. My faith in Wiki is restored.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I now seem to have a set of the natty blue ones. You're also most generous to describe my hacked-together table of same as "organised" -- I really must work out how to code those properly one of these days. Alai 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

rv where is the plagiarism from

I've already pointed it out. BhaiSaab 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Terrorists of Pakistani origin

I moved your comments to talk. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Terrorists of Pakistani origin has been suffering from sockpuppets, with "Keeps" coming from sleeper accounts primarily used for duplicating AfD votes, and "Deletes" coming from anons. Let's use the talk page for discussing this. —Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the contribs from any user who has used the expression "Keep per MLA" or some variation thereof. —Viriditas | Talk 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do, but all you have to do is look at the template code in edit mode to duplicate the info you want to display. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to deal with this nonsense. I wish there were better ways of dealing with this, as it's extremely annoying for most of us, and wastes valuable time we could both be spending improving the site. —Viriditas | Talk 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

shivaji

The links you're removing are sourced from organisations other than countercurrents.org. Also one of the sites in the reference section is blantatly pro hindu POV . To remove a link stating that's it's anti-hindu while leaving one that's blatantly pro doesn't seem like a fair thing to do. What do you think? --Nkv 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they misuse the content in other sites. However, I don't think being Marxist automatically disqualifies a site as non credible. The fact that they sourced it from the BBC does add credibility though. I think a discussion is in order before deletion. --Nkv 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That link was removed earlier by Danny Yee. As for the rest of them, do whatever you please. --Nkv 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Substitute

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. BhaiSaab 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Slur

that slur you made about Holywarrior to the IP is not appropriate.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho up to his usual edits

In 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision, he has been adding disproportionately long material, slanting the article away from the main event(s),and committing possible copyvio. I have reverted twice. He will undoubtedly counter-revert.Netaji 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some help in Godhra Train Burning

A user Geek1975 is currently slanting the article with bias. It's bedtime for me now and a long day in the department tomorrow so I won't be able to do anything for another 10-12 hours. If you have the time, then please do monitor the situation. The refs I am planning to use so as to balance the article better are:

this here here, and others (preferably the ones tken from news sources) here Thanks.Netaji 10:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Misplaced Pages:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. BhaiSaab 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have violated that before too. Practice what you preach.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was by accident. BhaiSaab 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Babri Masjid

So it's probably easy to find a reliable source that backs that claim. BhaiSaab 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Babri Mosque

I reported BhaiSaab too, for 6RR, no less.Netaji 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay

I think he was after the period titled Bengali renaissance. I may be mistaken though. Sharat rose in popularity after 1900+. He was a magical author of human character ... if you've seen Devdas, you know :). His other novels and stories are great too. Anyway, he may not be of the renaissance period ... you can double check that. Thanks. --Ragib 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nazrul was definitely a post-renaissance poet. --Ragib 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you count the broad movement, and changes, your argument in including Nazrul and Sharat Chandra may be correct. :) --Ragib 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

added to personal attack complaint against TerryJ-Ho

Done, and done. Thanks.Netaji 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 30m

For adding the bogus vandalism tag to BhaiSaab again during a content dispute, and calling the other anon a vandal when there is none, you have been blocked for 30m. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabi Maharaj

I notices that this article has gone largely unnoticed for a long time. Rabi Maharaj is one of the more notorious anti-Hindus and the article is a slip-shoody hagiograph of the fellow. If you have the time, then I'd appreciate contribs of any info you may have on the chap.Netaji 07:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pipe dreams

In the dreams of right wingers yes. Not in reality. Haphar 12:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Hindus support the BJP/RSS/VHP combine. Abroad, almost all Hindus are right wing Hindutva people. Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking just of Hindu's abroad here, but Hindu's in general. In light of which the statement changes. Haphar 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep a record of this personal attack. I'm gathering enough evidence against Haphar to report him.Netaji 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

With Bakaman himself agreeing to Hindu's abroad being right wing, there is no "attack". The comment does not call Bakaman right wing either so it is not a personal attack anywayHaphar 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

i just came online now.

sorry i was offline for some time as the wiki server was down in india. why dont you complain about him too and also seek the help of blnguyen. Anyways, i will watch that page. there is no way that he/she will be successful in the accusations. i will help wherever i can, but its not something u should worry about. As for you, please make a record of his/her contributrions which are obvious POVs. thank you.nids 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

well done. In getting him blocked. Are you in India, or in USA. You can mail me if you want to keep that hidden from other users.nids 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your encouragement and support. I really appreciate that.--Robcotton 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalitstan

I have restored your text: "It fail to mention is that the majority of South Indian and NE Indian brahmins are Saivites". Sorry for having deleted that withought a careful reading. Yes the organization site is (was?) a hate-monger, but let us not use that term.

Thank you for your interest in the Dalitstan article. I plan to add more to it. Please do share suggestions on other artticles I work on. I hope you will find them interesting. --Vikramsingh 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Discussion

I was watching the turn out of the mediation cabal. Cowman was right in pointing out that the case was much better suited for WP:AN/I, but I have a hunch, we've been through all that already. Anyhow, its good to see that User:Bcorr's method is working well. I suggest a similar pattern on all the controversial articles you guys are involved in. Also, as I said before, always use sources that qualify as a reliable source for referencing such articles. Pointing out to a website with obvious religious pov as a reference, only makes your point more vulnerable to attack. On the other hand, if both of you only rely on neutral sources, then the problem can be mitigated to a great extend. Also, when there are two views expressed by users on the same topic, you could write the first view, and then add "However, this view is contested by..." (or a similar add-on) and state the next one. Such a step helps keep both the views intact, while neither stating both to be the ultimatum. The decision or choice, should be left to the reader. Try to always maintain the balance in the viewpoints presented in the article. The Kargil War page could, perhaps, be a nice inspiration in this regard.
It definitely is nice to see people involved in such controversial articles, as they are often feared territories for most wikipedia regulars. However, try to always maintain your cool, and also try to add a pinch of humour and constructive satire here and there, to lighten the mood. Btw, I highly recommend a more extended wiki-break. The last time it was like you packed your bags, bid farewell, asked the neighbour to keep watch on your house while you are away, and then you return even before your train left the station. So don't let the addiction catch you this time. ;-) -- thunderboltz18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope this one wont be like your last. ;-) I concur with what DaGizza says below. The problem with all the mediation cabals concerning you guys, is that none of you are actually neutral. Both of you vean towards opposite sides, making things difficult for all the parties concerned. - thunderboltz18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of India Theory

Hi. I can't understand why you made this edit. Can you explain your point of view so I can fix up the wording if necessary. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terry Ho

Sorry Baka, I don't have time to look into the situation. Blnguyen is doing is a great job as it is anyway. See User_talk:Blnguyen#The_unofficial_Indian_disputes_mediator. All the Indian Wikipedians are commending him. I have enough faith that he will do the right thing. Remember when dealing with POV pushers, don't become POV yourself. Gandhiji made India independent from the British using Ahmisa, without hurting anyone. He should be your inspiration. Gizza 02:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Syiem's Response

Well the summary is:

1. Zafarnama is pushing his anti-India pro-Khalistan POV. One has to be blind to not be able to notice that. No diff is required. 2. Zafarnama has personally attacked everyone other editor who does not subsribe to his communal views. 3. He diligently quotes sources that support his views and removes citations of eminent authors like K.P.S. Gill, Khushwant Singh and Brar. These people, all three of them Sikhs have vehemently opposed Khalistan movement. So he calls them criminals and Keshdhari Hindus. 4. His edits on Khalistan and Operation Blue Star pages speak volumes about his bias.

It is easy to include all sorts of nonsence supported by authors of little repute. I will be glad to do that myself. That will adequately tell both sides of the story, but then you will end with an encylopedia on Khalistan. Is that what we need? I am only removing POV nonsence that does not help the reader of the article in anyway but unnecessary hurts the sentiments of a particular community. If you still need more clarification, then God bless Misplaced Pages.

Regards. Syiem 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

"Hindutva vandals" courtesy of Zafar , .Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

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 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

An edit war is brewing between Islamofascist users who are trying to load the article against Hindus by quoting from "Human Rights Watch", an unreliable source with a clear pattern of bias in favor of muslims (as evidenced by their anti-semitism : see the wikipedia article). I'm being swamped by multiple reverts from multiple users and would appreciate another pair of eyes into the matter. Thanks.Netaji 00:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Guj riots

the controveries are a very important part of the Gujarat riots... they need to be mentioned in a separate section... u've a problem with that then discuss it out at its talk page --Geek1975 06:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RSS

The wording used on that talk page seemed provocative. Mar de Sin 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Portugese"

It's actually spelled "portuguese." BhaiSaab 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Netaji was blocked for incivility. BhaiSaab 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

beware of 3RR violation

please consider as the first instance of revert which I must advise you may form a 3RR violation. The content posted is well sourced and links have been provided to the same affect. --Geek1975 06:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I have strong indications of sockpuppetry and am in process of presenting evidence. Please bear with me for a few minutes and you will have the evidence --Geek1975 07:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)