Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:20, 4 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, MinaretDk, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --D-Boy 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

warning

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse me? What nonsense? Please be specific. MinaretDk 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced edits and mass-blank text. It is vandalism and will be reported. If you have any problems discuss in the talk page first. Also, see WP:STALK regarding your edits to Anti-Brahmanism. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I explained myself on the talk page. Rediff is not an established reliable source, and everything else I deleted was either irrelevant, or uncited. Your talk page shows you get banned frequently, Maybe you should entertain the possibility that you are in the wrong here. MinaretDk 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No.Also, please see these refs:

Also, rediff is considered a reliable source on wikipedia. there is no if, and or but here.You should familiarize yourself more with wikipedia rules. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? The 'rediff' article doesn't even name its author. For all we know its copied from another publication. WP:RS outlines what makes a reliable source. Nothing to suggest rediff is a reliable source. I dont dispute US state dept is a reliable source, so thats irrelevant. Thuu. MinaretDk 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL.

Rediff is a reliable source. Simple. If you have issues get a mediator. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your user page, you should know all about being banned for 3RR. MinaretDk 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. Please discuss in the talk page per my references. You have also removed newstoday, a reliable source. Are you saying that that is also not a reliable source? That is incredulous. What is a reliable Source to you? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

These sources look like partisan rags. Cheap local newspapers can't be considered reliable. Amongst the rediff sources used are those where the authors name isn't mentioned. It seems to me rather than collecting information from solid sources, you are trying to promote your POV using anything that has ever been made into text regardless of factual integrity. 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TIME magazine is a "partisan rag"? Heeee!!! How about "Amnesty International" and here? Also a partisan rag? Your rhetoric betrays your bias I'm afraid. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Did I delete content citing Amnesty International? Use sources of high quality that people won't dispute, and get rid of low quality sources like "Rediff". MinaretDk 02:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Only you say they are low quality. Nobody else says so. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Image:Sector 4.jpg listed for deletion ==

If you created this media file and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

Personal Attack

Please refrain from calling people "Hindu Fundamentalists" as it is a personal attack. Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you're a Hindu fundementalist, I said you have their POV. That is not a personal attack, but an observation. Please invest more effort into not editing with such disregard for neutrality and factual accuracy. Please attempt to demonstrate less sympathy for Hindu extremism and their militant/terrorist actions. Please stop portraying the Hindu community in Bangladesh as being chronic victims of some imaginary atrocity. I'll refrain from using the phrase I used, regardless of how accurate it seems. MinaretDk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith, of which your statements above are a violation. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The same to you as well. I could just as easily say that, given the overwhelming references (BBC, Amnesty International) proving endemic persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, that your attempts to whitewash it belie an Islamic Fundamentalist POV line those of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh or the BNP. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You could just as easily say that, but then you'd be lying.I never deleted content citing BBC or Amnesty. There's nothing wrong with Jamaat i Islami. They explicitly state Hindus have a right to follow and enjoy their customs. Compare that to Baal Thakeray, who said Muslims shouldn't be allowed to pray in public view. MinaretDk 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Thackeray also said "We must accept the Muslims and make them a part of us". You should read Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul's books more. JI never said anything good about Hindus. They regard Hindus as subhuman infidels who should be massacred as per their false interpretation of the holy Qu'ran. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, despite all of this conflict, Muslims in India are among the freest in the world to practice Shariat and the entire range of the Fiqh. We pay Hajj subsidies to Muslims in India. An Indian Muslim was one of two people in history to translate the holy Qu'ran properly into English (Yusuf Ali) and the President of India is a Muslim. No such equivalent thing has happened for Hindus in Bangladesh, who are being hunted down to extermination. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were some kind of "anti-Muslim Hindu" from the pages of Lashkar-e-Toiba's propaganda leaflets, would I have made this suggestion to Islamophobia and expressed an interest in re-writing the article with historical instances of anti-Islam sentiments, or made these additions to Anti-Arabism? Rumpelstiltskin223 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, in India, anti-Islam books like the "Calcutta Quran petition" are banned, whereas anti-Hindu hate literature disseminated by Lashkar-e-Toiba like "Hinduon ki Haqeeqat" is allowed to circulate freely. In Bangladesh, one Muslim woman, Taslima Nasrin, writes books critical of Islamic Fundamentalism and her books are banned and she gets death threats. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This Rumpel thing is none other than HKelkar, under a ban of 1 year for disruption of almost the same set of articles.Now trying to evade the ban through some loopholes in technology.As you would see User:Hkelkar's edits, he has a habit of raking up populist speak like the one's above.87.74.2.15 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OR

Fine, I'll replace it with sourced, more pointed criticism. Arrow740 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. MinaretDk 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. . Misplaced Pages is not a madrassa. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Wizardman 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'm on 3 edits. The other editor is deleting content that has rock solid sources, so his work is pretty much vandalism. All he's doing is basically presenting misinformation and propaganda. MinaretDk 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rama's Arrow" block

MinaretDk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin offers no precise reason for his block. He blocked another Pakistani editor (I happen to be Bangladeshi, but am also critical of the pro-Indian POV in some of my edits) without a specific example of a violation, which has been widely criticized. Admin who blocked me has blocked another editor, and the circumstances of those blocks have been held as questionable as well. I am convinced that this admin makes it a habit to block people who present edits critical of Indian history, or content on Hinduism that might be considered critical. Therefore, he is corrupt. He is abusing his powers as an admin. I responded to attacks against me with far more civil language, and yet I am the one singled out.

Decline reason:

If you have a dispute, I strongly urge that you follow WP:DISPUTE when your block expires. Continuing to engage in an edit war will not solve anything. -- Yamla 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

My edits include valid citations, the people i'm fighting against disregard NPOV, VS, etc. I avoid violating 3RR as best I can. Under the circumstances, given the habit of accusation and vandalism of the person I was in conflict adopts, and given this admins picking-and-choosing which violators he punishes, this block should be undone.

PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR MY ANI RESPONSE

Previous misuses of the block:

Lists enemy's POV as reasion for block:

Other users notice same thing that I do: MinaretDk 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI report on your block

Please see this report. Rama's arrow 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd give me access to respond to the ANI allegation, or at least point viewers there to my response here? I would be grateful if anyone could post my response to the ANI on my behalf, since I'm temporarily paralyzed.

As I said before, I am a Bangladeshi, not a Pakistani. Anyone familiar with Bangladesh's history would understand why I'd not be particularly sympathetic on matters that generally trouble Pakistanis. I did edit on 2002 Gujarat Violence after finding the article was extremely biased, and Persection of Hindus to include the issue of caste discrimination. In both articles my edits were repeatedly deleted without reason, regardless of the fact that I was replacing ORIGINAL RESEARCH with texts citing appropriate sources (CNN, BBC, US Congress, etc). Now to your justifications for this block.

One diff you give (130) points to me explaining why commented on Rumplestiltskin's page. There he accuses me of being a meatpuppet for the Pakistanis he has a rivalry with. I RESPONDED by pointing out he is in fact vandalizing (deleting large amounts of cited text without reason or explanation) on two pages I am editing, and my gripe with him is separate from his troubles with those Pakistanis. My comment that amounts to your diff 134 is precisely accurate, and the deletion of verifiable content with solid sources is vandalism and the resultant effect in the article is propaganda. This is a reasonable response, doesn't violate NPA, and therefore is a lousy justification for blocking me.

On your meatpuppet accusation (you're violating WP:AGF in spades, especially considering you're blocking based on your prejudices), Nadirali probably looked up your edit history and found your block on my account. He clearly agrees with me and added another example of your abusive blocks. I welcome his addition although I have never spoken to him before. I criticized an earlier block you placed on another editor, back when I had no familiarity with you or the editors you are fighting with, when I saw your reasons almost entirely consisted of your POV differences with his editing; he spoke in that same thread. He saw the same thing. We both agree you are abusing the block feature for your own POV purposes. I found that an ugly use of admin powers then, and I still do so now. Now that you blocked me for these same petty reasons, he probably takes an interest in that too. Those are legit reasons, where 'meatpuppetry' isn't a reason or excuse. I have had no communications with NadirAli outside of the ANI entry on Rumplestiltskin, whom I find to be a terribly disruptive presence on Misplaced Pages. I have no association with the editors editing on "History of Pakistan" outside of that. That isn't meatpuppetry, that's three people seeing the same thing for what it is. The meatpuppet allegation is false, and requires some serious ABF (assume bad faith) to make the block seem reasonable.

On warnings, Rumplestiltskin puts warnings on MANY editors pages without citing real personal attacks. I made no personal attack against him recently, certainly not today, despite the fact that he called me an Islamic fundementalist. He added that warning today without reason and I deleted it. I was within my rights to delete unwarranted warnings on my own talk page. I did not add a warning to his user page, but reverted the MANY edits he kept deleting which included a warning template placed by another editor. What I reverted included comments I and others made in regards to his edits, and that warning placed by another editor. Apparently Rumplestiltskin is in the habit of calling everyone an Islamic fascist or what not. Apparently many people get annoyed with those accusations. It is not permissible to delete a valid warning, so my reverting them less than 3 times was within acceptable norms. I had been talking to other admins on Rumplestiltskins contributions, and I wanted them to see the many people he was in conflict with. That was my reason for reverting his talk page. Once again, not a justification for a block.

"I request input and criticism from all. There were numerous attempts by me, user:Fowler&fowler, user:Nobleeagle to advise these users to keep calm and seek Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, but they chose to start a vicious cycle of accusations, revert-warring and serious incivility. Rama's arrow 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" This is entirely false. No such communication has ever been made. I have no familiarity with any other conflict where such requests were made. My experience is limited to the three pages I edited.

On Rama's Arrow in general: His edit history shows he is in close communication with people pushing a biased pro-Hindu POV, including the very editor I am in conflict with. Rama blocks only those who oppose that bias, including me. I have no real problem with either Indians or Hindus, but in the two articles I edited, there is serious problems of propaganda-pushing. Yes, PROPAGANDA. Like "persecution of Hindus" suggesting Dalits opted for menial jobs rather than being forced into them. Like "Hinduism in Bangladesh" exclusively focusing on 'atrocities' to imply all Hindus do in Bangladesh is get persecuted (I have no objection to those allegations supported with verifiable sources". Rama uses the block as an editing tool, to block those people with views opposed to him. He does not apply that power uniformly, and turns a blind eye to violations of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:VS violated time and again by RumpleStiltSkin (clever ID, RSS) and his allies. MinaretDk 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rama blocks only those who oppose that bias, including me.

Minaret,

He's known to have blocked me, and I'm a Hindu and one who is often accused of "pushing an agenda."

_{Freedom skies| talk}  06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the going ons between this group of Indian editors.As precedent in User:Hkelkar's sockpuppetry case they destroy, the Muslim and/or Pakistani users, even though they do not pose equivalent misbehaviour risk.As a result you can see that a recent sockpuppet of User:BhaiSaab - is banned while User:Hkelkar comes back in flying colours and edits as User:Rumpelstiltskin...while User:TerryJ-Ho got a one year block (for reporting Hkelkar}even though he was better behaved and had just one block before.You and Other Muslim or Pakistani,Bangladeshi,Iranian or Arab editors are doomed on Misplaced Pages.This is increasingly becoming a right wing Hindu propaganda tool87.74.3.1 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution

I understand your POV but it's not Wikipolicy for your edits to stand in the way they are currently standing. Regards. — Nobleeagle 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I don't think your take on reality is actually logical or reasonable. Dismissing HRW because you think it's "anti-hindu"? How about the UN? What would you deem as "so credible that I can't blank it"? MinaretDk 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)'

OK, I'll look into the devdasi question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. MinaretDk 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked

MinaretDk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin who placed this block is already known to be a puppet for Hindu radicals here. I'm in the process of building my case against him and his usage of the block to push his agenda here. He has placed blocks on my account before, as well as those of others, on flimsy logic. Notice that the other editors in question have not been sanctioned accordingly, despite Bakasuprman's vile attack on Islam to which I responded, and Rumplestiltskin's vandalisms on the Persecution of Hindus page. Look at the edit history on Persecution of Hindus, consider the quality of my edits vs the blanking of huge amounts of texts by his friends. Look at Rumplestiltskin's talk page, he isn't being penalized for any violation he committed today, but merely has his block reset for sockpuppeting. Rama here has a personal stake in silencing editors here who oppose his POV.

Decline reason:

Personal attacks on the blocking admin very seldom result in an unblock. The rationale for your block, as enunciated on ANI, is persuasive. -- Sandstein 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

Your block is due to your misconduct, incivility, personal attacks and edit-warring on Persecution of Hindus, user talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 and in light of this report. Rama's arrow 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of my 'disruptive' edits to Persecution of Hindus were me undoing acts of vandalism, including those committed by your allies User:Rumplestiltskin223 and User:Bakasuprman. My edits to Rumplestiltskin/Hkelkar's page were limited to his allegations that I'm a supporter of Islamist radicalism. My comments regarding Bakasuprman were in response to this . Can I presume you'll appropriately deal with his expression of hate speech? Of course not. Given I've already made it clear you're a puppet for these Hindu fanatics, you shouldn't be issuing these blocks.MinaretDk 05:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)