Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ikonoblast: 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 10:04, 5 October 2006 editIkonoblast (talk | contribs)3,014 edits →Hello: ---- Re← Previous edit Revision as of 11:38, 5 October 2006 edit undoIkonoblast (talk | contribs)3,014 edits →Content Disputes: ---- rmvd garb frm Ben W ,better keep in your or Hkelkar page to whom it concernsNext edit →
Line 95: Line 95:
:::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..<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 11:14, 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..<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 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.

{{cquote2|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. <BR>
# Go and read ]. 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. <BR>
# 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 ] edit. <BR>
# 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.<BR>
# POV. Please read the Misplaced Pages article ]. 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. <BR>
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 ] may also result in a temporary block for undermining the spirit of the policy if not the letter of it.<BR>
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. ] ] 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 11:38, 5 October 2006

User is not Editing outside this page to protest against some Admin's Vandalism and Trolling 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)

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)


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)

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).

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

Block already expired. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:19, 4 October 2006 (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.

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)
Did you block me to fecilitate this. Ikon |no-blast 08:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen you are the person who is having the fun of adminship while I am the guy who has been most harassed by the Hkelkar & trolley.Sadly you too end up being part of that. Ikon |no-blast 09:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can admin block someone for having fun

Since the block is obviously to have fun; Plz leave your remarks on this side of adminship. Ikon |no-blast 09:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am logging out but survey must go on.I will log in after 2-3 days.Blnguyen may choose to block me for that pd. or if his head doesn't cool with that too he may invent some reason to impose indeff block. Ikon |no-blast 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Remarks

I feel oblidged to ask you what you mean by this comment. Ben W Bell talk 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being too harsh on you,of course if I attempt(I pity those who are motivated by success alone) that you won't be the only person (You can rely on me -- I feel I am worth this much trust).There are many many who are higher up the order,you must feel comfort of being too low and maybe even worthy of forgiveness because your modesty at times inspires me.If you think it was a sort of attack on you, just have a look at incivil posts by admins above who threatens block for reasons they themselves don't know,connives with known trolls , and invents loopholes to pursue their unethical agenda --- You have been witness to some of their deeds too .Lastly I would remind you of the unanswred question above ,would you like to answer them. Ikon |no-blast 09:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment(active for 2 days)

(Add your comments here;After 2 days it will be on ANB or RfArb)

Are these warnings bogus: ,issued against removal of these sources from votebank .Vote Bank Politics by Syed Ali Mujtaba
- 2.Congress looks for a Vote Bank
- 3.Tussle for Hindu Vote Bank in Tamil Nadu
- 4.Vote Bank Politics in Malaysia
- 5.Vote Bank Politics in Kuwait
issued against rv addition of sources and content in Lalu Prasad Yadav without undoing any pvs cotribution -- see talk page too (Plz check versions from Gamesmasterg ----ikonoblast---Hkelkar in folowing link One may clearly infer the other two were simply undoing my edits one must look in details for having clear view of their misdeeds, , and was issued against rv warnings with abusive edit summary. All warnings issued on or before Sept,29th. I was blocked for it. Ikon |no-blast 09:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins who think it was bogus

Hello

I do not know you, and learnt about you from Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Administrators' noticeboard. I would suggest you to continue editing. However, we all know that sometimes one may even help the Project by not editing! --Bhadani 08:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanx phps you remember user:Holywarrior. Ikon |no-blast