Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:46, 3 October 2006

Click for Instant CHAT Archive---->0|1

Regarding your edits to Laloo Prasad Yadav

While I respect the fact that you clearly have a great deal of admiration for a significant political figure like Laluji (to some extent, I admire him too), don't you think that your recent edits are a bit hagiographic? For instance, some of his actions "as railway minister" don't pertain to the railway at all. Plus, Laluji is such a significant political figure who has done so many things (good and questionable) that chronicling all of his activities will make the article needlessly large. Won't it be better to selectively edit the article to make it representative of Laluji's career? What do you think?Hkelkar 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been answered here and here.From next time always put the discussion on article's talk page only .Putting same discussion on two places is considered unfair.Take care. HW  09:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits in Bhumihar

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Please understand that this is NOT real life. This is an encyclopedia. I do not mean to offend you but it seems that you have complexes and that is why you are slandering upper castes. In future, try to be constructive. I am not awaiting any reply or an explanation. And I suppose you are not allowed to remove warnings and ban templates as you have done. If you have too much time to spend then use it to 'better the wikipedia®. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have struck out the above bogus vandalism warning (content dispute).Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking timely action but because of Badminton's efforts for which he has enough time , the article has becomeUSELESS.I don't remember having erased any warning or ban earlier , but your language and incidents of warnings (Bogus ones which I did erase a bit) remind me of banneduser:PandalPetrol.Take care  Ikon |no-blast 09:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for repeated incivil edit summaries. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Unblock. Ikon |no-blast 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• See the following 3RR report. You appear to be gaming the system as well as accusing editors of trolling and vandalism without due cause. El_C 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can give you enf reason supporting what i accuse of them but you beter count diffs .See Earlier 3RR case too where I was wrongly reprted by the same person. Ikon |no-blast 11:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User Hkelkar has history of bogus reporting.How can you rely on his report. Ikon |no-blast 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please observe civility and refrain from maligning others.Hkelkar 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Plz also showv where I have accused anyone. Ikon |no-blast 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 3 rv on sept,19th does not violate 3RR either. Ikon |no-blast 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I agree with you that the two articles should be merged. But you gotta keep your cool when advancing your points. And you could have just merged it as I just did now. Anyway, if you promise to relax, I'm willing to unblock. El_C 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I promise Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to EL_C for resolving the issue finally.I wish I could have met you earlier. Ikon |no-blast 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It took me a full minute and a half to do it. :) Okay, you're unblocked. Happy editing. El_C 13:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

More issues ensue

It has been brought to my attention that you're still acting in an incivil manner. If you make further incivil remarks toward another editor, you may be blocked without further warning. Please work toward advancing your points in a dispassionate and professional manner. Thanks in advance. El_C 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like your intervention into the case.Plz take a look at the article itself ,how both of them has dubiously distorted the facts in the artocle like replacing CPI(Marxist) with Maoist and Votebank as Votebanal and mnay such mischiefs would you like to see that. Ikon |no-blast 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as you remain civil, that's fine. The "CPM has intensely lobbied to legitimize madrassa "education" in West Bengal. That smacks of vote bank politics" — sounds like uncited original research. It makes much more sense that the CPI, being the sellouts that they are, engage in such votebank practices. Anyway, I'll try to have a closer look at it tommorow. Please keep your cool till then. El_C 10:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time onward you repeat the incivil clause,be sure to cite diffs too,for I am feeling sick of these unfounded accusations.I have already brought to your notice how unreliable these ppl are.check my archive for that matter.

No credible source till date has accused CPI or CPM of practising votebank politics infact a citation with statement clearly bearing similar connotations is already there.Trying to discover votebank of left parties would be OR as per WP:NOR. Ikon |no-blast 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No argument with that. But regardless of this specific content item, both parties need to realize that if they want me to look into the conduct matter (spanning several articles), they need to present a clear, concise, and well-documented account. I simply cannot spare the time to go through entire articles, talk pages/archives, et cetera. Individual diffs need to be cited alongside pertinent summaries. El_C 00:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Any admin has failed to please me.Carry on what pleases you.There are three unwanted elements on wikipedia Vandals , trolls and admin and last one cis simply sum of first two.How do you feel belonging to this class. Ikon |no-blast 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ikonoblast,

Happy to see you with a new username. "Holywarrior" wasn't the best choice. Unfortunately, you are still your own worst enemy. Please stay calm, and avoid the 3RR, even when you consider your opponents gaming the system. --Pjacobi 11:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on September 24 2006 to Votebank

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

You'll be pleased to hear that the dozy admins have woken up.

William M. Connolley 12:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Since the issue over Votebank is a content dispute, not a vandalism case, a bogus vandalism tag is a personal attack.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHkelkar&diff=77888456&oldid=77868052 Hkelkar 12:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a genuine warning and i do feel you need a block for refraining to avoid vandalism (removal of sources cannot be termed content dispute).what you have posted above is just an example of bogus warnings and vandalism. Ikon |no-blast 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plz see this.Hkelkar 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plz click on new versions ,i have shown him what he was not aware of.Good day. Ikon |no-blast 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bhumihar

I'm afraid, I am not really working on this page. I just wikified some of the things here. I'm an anti-caste fanatic, so I am not much into these caste articles. I am not sure about castes and subcastes; I'll try to cleanup the article, though. utcursch | talk 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah

I have responded on my talk page. Ben W Bell talk 06:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpupet labelling

Don't go around labelling user accounts as suspected sockpuppets. If you have evidence to present then present it in the correct place, but do not go around arbitarily labelling user accounts as sockpuppets. Ben W Bell talk 16:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben I haven't placed them arbitrarily only proven ones. Ikon |no-blast 10:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Shame some of the ones you placed are not sockpuppets then. Hleklar (or however you spell it) isn't a sockpuppet, this has been proven. Ben W Bell talk 11:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I had placed suspected tag on him not confirmed ,which must be placed if RFCU is going on and have been accepted besides the result is Likely.Plz,also have a look what that guy had done to Dhammafriend's page; the request was not even entertained.Which is more shameful!!!!! Ikon |no-blast 11:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Plz clarify--- Do you mean to say I sd not tag even if RFCU is going on with proofs??? What after RFCU clarify this too.Look. Ikon |no-blast 11:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Content Disputes

Ikonoblast. As I have warned other users I will mention this to you as well. A content dispute does not constitute deliberate vandalism. If a user makes edits that you disagree with they are not automatically considered vandalism. I shall quote to you what I have said to other parties involved in disputes among the same articles and circles that you frequent and I hope you take note of them.

Right you two, I am posting this message to both your pages. STOP IT!!! You are both acting like kids in a playground. Now I don't know anything about the topics under discussion but both your actions are becoming disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Now I've been very busy with other things these last couple of days so I haven't been able to intervene as was probably needed. I would like to point out a couple of things to you.

1. Go and read WP:Vandalism. People making edits you don't necessarily agree with isn't the same as vandalism, it is a content dispute. Warning each other for vandalism for doing and undoing each others edits is disruptive and just plain wrong.
   
2. There are talk pages attached to every single article in Misplaced Pages. There are talk pages for specific areas and projects within Misplaced Pages. Content disputes and differing ideas should be discussed on these pages. I note there has been a whole lot of reverting, vandalism warnings back and forth and such like, but very little in the way of attempting to actually talk to each other. Use the pages. Don't make more than one revert without discussing your differences, one person't vandalism is another's good faith edit.
   
3. Stop being so diruptive. My talk page, and every other talk page, are not areas for you to attack one another and try to outdo each other. Reading through my talk page it reads like two kids coming to mother and saying "he did this" and "he did that". Please stop it.
   
4. POV. Please read the Misplaced Pages article WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia. Your personal views and opinions should be irrelevant to the maintenance of a neutral encyclopaedia. If you feel really strongly one way or another on a particular subject, then you probably really shouldn't be editing it as your bias will come through.
   

So in closing, what you two have is a content dispute. Who is right, I really don't know as I'm not au fait with the topics. What I do know is it isn't deliberate vandalism so stop with the vandalism warnings. If either of you reverts and puts a warning of vandalism on the other users page for what would seem to others to be a good faith edit, I'll consider a temporary block on that person for disruptive behaviour. Also skirting close to the WP:3RR may also result in a temporary block for undermining the spirit of the policy if not the letter of it.

So please, discuss your differences, use the talk pages constructively and talk calmly. If you see an edit that gets your blood up and you have to strike out against it, turn your computer off for a few hours, go away and do something relaxing and calm down. You know what they say "edit in haste, repent in error", which reminds me of the time an email annoyed me at work and I accidentally hit Reply To All and didn't realise the CEO and company Board were included in the reply list, but that's another story. Thank you.

Please take note of the above, though I am awar not all of it necessarily applies to you but I can't be bothered to retype or edit the relevant parts. Use the talk pages (it's what they are there for) and stop dragging others into affairs which any civilised editors should be able to discuss between themselves using the talk pages provided. Ben W Bell talk 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put vandalism warnings on other users pages for content disputes. Or you'll be blocked William M. Connolley 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Plz specify your charges and refrain from using bullying/intimidation techniques.Of course vandalism can't be called content dispute if you choose to call it. Ikon |no-blast 07:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FOr??????? Ikon |no-blast 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

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.

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=Block reason is bogus |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=Block reason is bogus |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=Block reason is bogus |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

. Ikon |no-blast 08:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For adding bogus vandalism tags to Hkelkar. That's pretty obvious. Also I note that in a post further up the page, you infer that ADMIN = VANDAL + TROLL. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as Hkelkar is concerned Tags are genuine check it if you haven't already.Beacause you have stooped to the level of inventing a reason of block which is obvious now.This is not the way to show your Vandalism and trolling behaviour you may learn it from Hkelkar & Trolley, thiy will surely teach you new tricks. Ikon |no-blast 08:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock