Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kappa (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 22 September 2006 (Right to a voice - please help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

• Chit Chat
• Solicitations
• Admonitions
• Discussions with DBachmann
• Natalinasmpf KDRGibby Mattley
• User talk:BostonMA/Disambiguation
• User talk:BostonMA/Appreciation
• Sai Baba Mediation Related

Misplaced Pages Bill of Rights, etc

First of all, I want to thank you for your comments in various disputes in which I have been involved here recently. I should have responded more quickly, but I wanted to couple my thanks to my response to your request for input on the proposed "Bill of Rights." My response (which has ended up being a full-length, extensive and extensively revised draft proposal) took much longer than I had anticipated to complete. I'm placing the draft on the talk page of the "Bill of Rights"/User prerogatives proposal; I hope you find it useful in continuing/reopening the discussion. If you think another location would be more suitable, please feel free to move it wherever you see fit. Best, Monicasdude 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; it looks like I lost some text cutting and pasting. I think I've fixed it now. Monicasdude 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu

I believe it is an egregious violation of POV. As for your question as to whether you should be participating there, I think you should decide it by yourself, going by your other priorities. I don't want to engage there, because I believe that it is one of the best papers in the world and I read it regularly and hence, I am apprehensive that this bias of mine can colour my views. I have already added this to neutrality-issues on WP:INWNB and I would invite a couple of non-Indian editors who I believe are fair and adhere to a NPOV. I do reserve the right to step in, though ;) --Gurubrahma 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question at Quiz

Well, there is no hurry. You can ask the question any time in next 24 hours. In fact, you can announce that you will ask the question at a particular time.--Dwaipayanc 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is vandalism

That is not vandalism, it is a content dispute, and it will be solved as soon as you present a reliable source to back up the claims you keep re-adding. --Irishpunktom\ 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is edits which are not made in good faith with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. I showed you the existing references, and I told you that I could provide many more if you had doubts. Among the references I provided are . You deleted with the comment "no reliable source added". I can no longer assume that your deletions are in good faith, but are perhaps WP:Point. --BostonMA 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Vandalism is: any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia. Now, the new scientist article was written prior to the event, and is an estimate of who might attend, and Karl Grobl is neither reliable, nor is his reporting on what happened, rather what may happen in the future "By the time the 2001 Kumbh Mela ends on February 21st, approximately 70 million saints, sinners, Sadhus, faith healers, preachers, gurus, charlatans and devotees from across India and the world will have participated in perhaps the single most colossal gathering of humanity since the dawn of time."--Irishpunktom\ 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my not quoting the vandalism policy to your liking. Do you seriously doubt the accuracy of the statement or that I can provide reliable sources? If not, then I believe that your changes are "a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia." Please cease. The purpose apparently being WP:Point, perhaps the point being "if you don't jump through the hoops I set up for you, I will delete material I do not doubt is correct." I'm sorry, I don't see such actions as a good faith content dispute. --BostonMA 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, welcome to the club of Editors Who Fight Irishpunktom's Lack of Good Faith Editing (EWFILGFE). ;-) Netscott 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is, there is a difference between vadalism and a Content Dispute! We are having a dispute over the content of an article. It is not vandalism, now, the source you have added quotes figures of 30 and 80 , significantly less than what you are using it as a reference for. --Irishpunktom\ 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep deleting that it is the largest religious gathering on earth. Do you dispute this? Estimates of the crowd size vary, as estimates in that range necessarily must. If you would like to say that the crowd was estimated to be such and such, that is fine. Or, if you would like to say that estimates of the number of people range from x to y, that is also fine. Deleting the fact that it is the largest religious gather on earth, (according to some, the largest gathering on earth of any type), well that is not fine. That fact is well documented by reputable sources, and deleting it, unless you sincerely believe that it may be in error, is, I'm afraid vandalism. Don't do it. --BostonMA 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• We're about five or six in the club (at least, there are probably others who are silent members). Shall I include you in our roster? LOL! Netscott 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about that, altough it being in bold is against policy, but you kept reverting it back in. You keep adding this figure of seventy million, but that was added as specultion prior to the event. You allowed it to be viewed as tough only hindus were present, despite a cited BBC article reporting on India using the event to attract (non-Hindu) tourists. Your article reports as tough these "70 million" people were all present at the one time, despite each of the articles cited referring to it being an event which lasts over one month. Again, this is a content dispute, and the one not assuming good faith here, really, is you. --Irishpunktom\ 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not assuming good faith. I came to the conclusion that you were not acting in good faith. If you would like me to assume good faith again, please answer me these questions:

• Do you doubt that this was the largest religious gathering in the world?
• Do you doubt that being the largest religious gathering in the world is a notable fact that is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages?
• Do you doubt that Misplaced Pages would be negatively impacted if this information is removed?

As for your other comments, it is not "my" article. It is Misplaced Pages's article and it was written by many editors, most of them not myself. If you would like to have a genuine discussion about shortcomings that may appear in the article, you are welcome to start such a discussion, although I suggest that you begin in the article talk page and not here in my user talk page. --BostonMA 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevent, the claims you make and revert in, need to be sourced properly. Its not about opinion, its not even about truth, its about verifiabiity. --Irishpunktom\ 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. An essential difference between vandalism and a simple content dispute is the intent of the editor. --BostonMA 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, assume good faith and deal solely with the issues surrounding the content dispute. --Irishpunktom\ 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I believe that you understand that it is a fact that Kumbh Mela has been the largest religious gathering in the world. I also believe that you understand that Misplaced Pages would be harmed by the removal of such facts. Putting these together, I believe that your removal of this fact amounted to vandalism. If you want me to assume good faith, you need to address these issues. You began this thread because I posted several test templates on your talk page. You are now asking me to treat your edits as a simple content dispute. There are undoubtedly genuine content issues worthy of discussion. However, I will not treat your edits solely as a content dispute, because I believe they constituted vandalism. If that bothers you, you may address the concerns I have expressed. --BostonMA 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforce Wiki Policy Equally - Block Woggly

After reading all the facts of this dispute - I really don't understand why Israelbeach has been blocked while Woogly goes on editing after making very clear and transparent personal attacks, legal threats and overall harrasments against Israelbeach.

I would expect that the managment of Misplaced Pages and its volunteer administrators would have enforced Misplaced Pages policy equaly for both sides. Misplaced Pages could have prevented the above lawsuit if it acted properly and swiftly. Maybe there is still time to avoid it.

I have also been a victim of personal attacks by Woggly (being named a "sockpuppet" without any evidence). If anyone here is willing to meet or speak with me - you are most welcome.

Some editors here are playing childish but very harmful games to other's personal and commercial reputations instead of focusing on the real mission of Misplaced Pages - creating a fine community service. Bluegrasstom 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

It's good to be back. Karmafist 02:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about Indian planet names

I'm editing a section of the word planet in the English Misplaced Pages and was thinking of adding a brief mention of the Indian names for the planets and their origins. However I am a bit confused. I know there are many languages in India, but do they all use the same Navagraha-based names for the planets? Thank you for your help. Serendipodous 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply; yes that was helpful, but I was also wondering if what they denoted (ie, the gods) was the same, regardless of language, in much the same way that the countries of east Asia use the five Chinese elements to identify the planets, even if their own respective words for them may be different. And would that be true for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the other countries of the Indian subcontinent as well? Serendipodous 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

dab

I see you have also had run-ins. His comments are totally incivil. I even agreed with his edit, but I took issue with the racist garbage spouted on the edit summaries and talk pages (including our "discussion").Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Akshaya Patra

Instead of renaming it, you may want to try a re-direct. It is not wrong to call it an NGO, but somehow it doesn't resemble typical Indian NGOs; let it remain. After some investigations, I have found that there is nothing common between ISKCON and them on paper. However, all the active board members are from ISKCON, Bangalore. --Gurubrahma 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hey! Thanks for your dedication on Counter-Vandalism. However, you recently forgot to sign some of your warnings with your name and time. Please remember to do so, cause it helps users like me using VandalProof or other softwares know when the last warning was issued to the user. Thanks! :) --Deenoe 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's all good =) --Deenoe 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hindu Mathmeticians etc.

Hi! In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an article titled List of Jews that categorises people based on their profession. The same has been done at List of Christians and List of Hindus. In these articles, the focus is to highlight prominent people who are followers of the religion. Hence, a categorisation is required to assert their prominence. The sub listings can be justified per WP:SS. However, it is unnecessary to have such a classification via a cateogry. There are already categories for Hindus as well as for athletes. So a further classification as Hindu atheletes is unwarrented; and if need, can be accessed using the category intersection functions.
And yes, Kerala is a place that surprises me by its beauty even today, despite having lived here all my life. I havent been to Brahmagiri though. Will try to, now that you recommended it. Regards-- thunderboltz 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay. I have decided not to push in the cfd debate any further, as I'm not interested in sacrificing my integrity, and be branded as a pseudo-secularist by certain users. I do, however, owe you a reply. Listings can become very long like this one. We can make it more compact and readable by creating daughter articles and linking to them from the original article. Something similar to summary style procedure. This is as opposed to a category, which is not in the article namespace, and the content is more or less unencyclopedic when presented as such. See Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes for the advantages of a list over a category.-- thunderboltz 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely fine. But as a last attack, I must, of course remind you...Oh never mind! I keep forgetting my decision to quit this cfd. Cheers and best regards :-) -- thunderboltz 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD =

For the record, I am about to propose many "lists of Jews" (and especially "categories of Jews") for deletion. You are welcome to vote to delete them (or propose some more lists for deletion!). These lists and categories have been extremely controversial in the past. Bellbird 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New anon user

Oh, I didn't know that you were online still. You weren't harsh, you were to the point. In fact, you have oodles of patience - I was always impressed by your mediation efforts. Thanks a ton for making WP a better place. Do keep an eye on the user though. --Gurubrahma 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicole

Indef. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri

How about now? User:Leotolstoy

A request

Try not acting patronizing to others. There was no personal attack anywhere on the cfd Christian mathematician, rather someone accusing bad faith whilst not making any effort to read the arguments for the case. ...And Beyond! 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is referring to the user and not the topic, that doesn't make it anywhere close to a personal attack valid of being reminded WP:NPA. ...And Beyond! 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be interpreted as such, but its intention wasn't, and I really can't help if I unconciously offend others. ...And Beyond! 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, right on the afd above that someone did personally attack me:

• Keep - Many Jewish mathematicians, cite Jewishness as one of the inspirations in their studies.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This category is not for those people, it is for anyone who happens to have a Jewish forebearer. Please make your decision so it reflects that. ...And Beyond! 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats more irrelevant are your annoying rants.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it's no big deal; this happens a lot on heated CFD/AFDs. ...And Beyond! 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BostonMA! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...and Beyond

It's OK - I'll do it.--Runcorn 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Message from User:24.31.231.143

I got your messange! And thank you for sending me that Wiki-Mail. But how do you send messages? I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.231.143 (talk • contribs)

1 vs. 100

I don't know how to contact you, BostonMA, but you should let my 1 vs. 100 edit stand. It is correct. I have first-person knowledge of which I write.

I'm curious: What made you think that my edit was bogus? Why did you assume I was wrong, vandalizing, playing in the sandbox, or whatever?

Your removals on AFDs

Please feel free to checkuser me. I have provided my IP address on my user page. Other than that, please do not breech your admin powers (if you have any) and/or wikipedia's standards by removing comments on an AFD made by a banned user. Only possible sockpuppet user comments may be striked out if they are on the same afd/cfd. Thank you. TDL31 01:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, you did. You removed notices by another user that the certain votes were made by a sockpuppet. This sockpuppetry was abusive, because different socks of the same user voted in the same votes. (See WP:Sock). I suspect that you are also User:Antidote. --BostonMA 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Stop personally attacking me as a sock. I have requested you "checkuser" me if you must.
2. Only sockpuppet comments that are ON THE SAME CFD can be crossed-out. You are removing numerous comments where the And Beyond character only commented, and made no "abusive" edits. This is violating WP:Sock and also skewing information on the cfd. Please stop.
3. Notice how I left the "cross outs" on his Boskovic sock. These are not valid, and should be removed or made not of. TDL31 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Boscovic was blocked and then 7 hours later, your account User:TDL31 was created at . You, as User:TDL31 immediately go to work removing the sockpuppet notices for User:Boscovic and User:...And Beyond!. That is good enough evidence for me to strongly suspect that you are a sock. --BostonMA 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Sock defines abusive use of socks to include casting multiple votes on a single issue. You did so, for example at Category:Christian mathematicians here and here --BostonMA 12:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13

You to me: Hi Bhadani, could you semi-protect this page, as well as September 12, and 10. If that is not possible I understand. However, there is a sockpuppet who has voted multiple times, was blocked, and he keeps removing the notices that he is a sockpuppet, by using what I strongly suspect are new sockpuppet accounts. Your help is greatly appreciated. --BostonMA 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My response:These pages are highly visible pages, and no nonsense may continue unnoticed long by others. In case, some one is really a sockpuppet, he/shall gets exposed sooner than later. I think protecting pages would serve no purpose. If some one is removing comments, he shall be treated as a vandal. Please do not worry much. --Bhadani 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann's comments on Indians

I saw on your user page a section as noted above, and also read the relevant "discussion". I think virtual communities like wikipedia exposes many persons' real intent and mentality. They may retract later on fearing the backlash of the community, but they are what they are! Please do not worry - Abraham Lincoln had concluded: you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Either the wiki-community has to get rid of proponents of racialism or the self-respecting wikipedians have to say good bye to wikipedia. The choice is ours, and there is always light after the tunnel. Please do not feel perturbed, and please continue to remain active. Regards. --Bhadani 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Really sad. --Bhadani 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CfDs

Thanks for that. I'm on British time, so it was the middle of the night.--Runcorn 06:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your warning

Howdy! I apologize for any sort of inconvenience that my peers might have made. My username is GofG, and I often edit from school. I have since gotten the teachers to make vandalizing Misplaced Pages a demerit-worthy offense, and as you can see the vandalism has slowed. I apologize again!68.156.179.102 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahabharata

bAd

User:bostanMA , nothing good is going to come out of your comments in his talk page. He will just remove your comments and will claim you were trolling.-Bharatveer 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes i know that story. Best Regards.-Bharatveer 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

(this is in regards to a note in the Items to Negotiate, Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and was moved from that location. --BostonMA 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

have I not, now? I argue that I have shown patience and good faith to the point of ridicule, several times over, and that I am not to blame if I refuse to go through the motions another time each time that any editor feels that I should be made to. Your statement is wrong. I assume that you are not aware it is, but then I do not understand why you should feel called to comment on my behaviour without first researching my behaviour. My comments are not offensive, and I do not have to apologize for their content. I did apologize for any unintended offence they may have caused, more than sufficiently, and I won't do it again. It is very obvious that any editors dragging this up again are not acting in good faith, and I am flattered that they are apparently unable to produce anything less stale as evidence of alleged misbehaviour on my part.

You may read the last iteration of this here. I refuse to address this once every month, anyone interested in this "controversy" can go through the archives and read everything I have to say about it. dab (ᛏ) 07:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User page

I must say, I find Alex Bakharev hit the nail on the head. The issue of dab's unfortunate comment, made in a time of high stress and subsequently interpreted in ways he did not intend, is really yesterday's snow. I suggest we all just let it rest. I do not think that keeping a constant reminder to the episode on your user page was in any way beneficial to our mutual goal of building an encyclopedia. I suggest that you just remove it and be done with it. As has been shown recently, it proves to be a pitfall for people like Bhadani, who stumble upon it and don't know the full history and then get a harsh response, since having an unfortunate remark pointed out even after so much time is unnerving. It's also—whether you intended that or not—a lure to draw out dab to react to it. In my opinion, it's poor style. The time spent on this matter would be invested better in writing decent encyclopedia articles. All the best, Lupo 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo, thank you for your comments. I am quite sure that you have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart, as do many of us. However, as is often the case, although we may hold similar things dear to us, we may see things in differnt lights. I know that dab may be reading this, which makes explaining how I see things somewhat awkward, as this comment is not meant as a personal attack on dab. However, since you are coming to me, and engaging me, I feel I ought to respond with honesty, but with as much gentleness as I am able.

The unresolved issues that I expressed to dab here remain unresolved. Rather than becoming ameliorated over time, these issues have become, in my opinion, more aggrevated. Dab has been a prolific editor, and is very knowledgable. That is his asset to Misplaced Pages. However, he also has qualities, which in my opinion are very detrimental to his working cooperatively with other editors, and these qualities have been becoming more pronounced.

From your comments, I gather that you believe that the heart of the current conflict is an old comment, an "unfortunate comment" that was made long ago, and is best forgotten. However, from my point of view, this is not the case. The behavior that led to the older conflict is habitual and ongoing. If the most recent unresolved issue with dab that I have recorded is old, this is due to my lack of interest in pursing the matter. At each step, dab has stated that he is unwilling to discuss further, and my instincts told me that raising new grievances would not help the resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, the essential ingredient to all of my later grievences with dab are found in the earlier conflict. Reduced to its bare essentials, in my opinion, dab has difficulty accepting that he may have done something wrong, and has difficulty trying to make amends with those he has alienated.

I offer to you as an example, the recent episode with Bhadani. Bhadani is one of the most forgiving persons I have met on Misplaced Pages. If dab were to truly show some understanding of the fact that he failed to assume good faith, that his invective toward Bhadani and toward other editors was inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator, if dab truly understood how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly, and attempted to mend his fences, and to change his behavior, then I have not a doubt in my mind that Bhadani would forgive dab his past. Not a doubt.

So, I ask you to consider that there is another side to this story, and that perhaps you may want to, if you care about dab, gently remind him of things such as that he should not be demanding civility as his "right" against others, when he is unwilling to treat those others with civility and dignity. You may wish to remind him that those who are annoyed with him do not constitute a grand conspiracy of ignorant editors. You may wish to remind him that it is unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors when making derogatory comments about their edits.

I am sorry. I had intended to be calm. I should perhaps let this comment sit for a day, for rewriting, but I too grow impatient, and tired of misbehavior, and so, probably with a certain degree of poor judgement, I submit this to you. Thank you again for your interest in doing what is best for Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened by your response. All your commentary rests indeed on this one comment of his and the interpretation third parties have attached to it. Dab has clarified repeatedly what the circumstances and his intentions were. If people pop up nearly a year later on his talk page, enraged and unaware of the history and still chide him for that frustrated comment (which is by no means indicative of his usual attitude), it's no wonder they're brushed off courtly. And, I'm sorry to say, you are guilty for this to happen, too: that's what I meant with my statement that your prominent continued mention of this old incident was a pitfall for the unwary.

You also seem to have concluded (despite your stated "lack of interest in pursing the matter") that dab was habitually rude. That, however, may apply only to his reactions in this matter, on his own talk page. (In my opinion, he'd do best not to answer at all.) I perceive your sweeping statement as a gross misrepresentation. In fact, you will find that most of his edits are to articles, and his article talk page comments mostly are about the article subject, and only very rarely about an editor's behaviour. Dab has no patience with the incompetent, and, given his deep knowledge of liguistic topics, it's not always easy to convince him in the rare cases when he makes a factual error. But I have never seen his discourse on article talk pages, brusque as it may be, descend to a personal level. The isolated incident way back is not indicative of his usual discourse. His actions before and since then clearly show that. Your repeated mention that it is "unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors" misses the point completely in this case, as he doesn't do so routinely, as you imply.

The "how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly" can of course also be turned around. Can you imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once many months ago but repeatedly? Furthermore, can you imagine how this must look to someone who's prime reason for contributing here is to write encyclopedia articles? It's no wonder he reacts (maybe overly) harshly when prompted about this for the umpteenth time on his talk page. And again, that it occurs repeatedly is also your doing.

I don't think anything good will come from continuing to keep to this "issue" alive. Most of the involved parties care about the encyclopedia, and will get along reasonably well on technical terms. That's good enough. Insisting further makes it look like some people were just trying to be disruptive on purpose. I don't like disruption; people should write decent encyclopedia articles instead. Hence I ask you again to bury the issue and to remove that section from your user page. Keeping it is doing more harm than good; it's only aggraving a situation that many other people (so I gather from the assorted recent comments) consider a non-issue or at least an issue long closed, and makes it look like you just wanted to prove something. Not investing the time to truly check your premises ("lack of interest in pursing the matter") is outright negligent, and making sweeping diffuse allegiations ("later grievences") is detrimental to the point you're trying to make.

Sincerely, Lupo 08:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you wish to protect Misplaced Pages and significant contributors from spurious attacks. That is a praiseworthy goal. However, I believe that you misunderstand the facts in this case.

You begin by stating that all my commentary rests on a single comment. That is not so. As I stated before, there is an ongoing issue. I have added a few of the more recent events to my user page for your benefit. However, if you are unconvinced, I suggest you a) research the issue further, b) ask dab for his appraisal, and if you are still unsatisfied, you may come back to me, and I will do my best to clarify things for you.

I agree that leaving an old comment on my user page, rather than more recent comments, provided an opportunity for editors who did not look at dates to get the mistaken impression that the comment was recent. However, this was not my intention. Rather, the comment was posted on my userpage 9 months ago. Dab was notified of it, and in the course of discussion repeatedly expressed that he was not interested in discussing with me, and so the issue remained in the Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and I let the issue lie dormant.

My comment that I did not want to pursue the matter, meant that I was not going to pursue dab and try to engage him in a discussion that he did not want to have. I was not going to post annoying messages on his talk page, I was not going to file an RfC against him, I was not going to poke at him every time he did something I objected to. With one, or possibly two exceptions, over a period of nine months, I left him alone, and made no comments. That does not mean that I didn't notice his behavior.

I have stated that I find dab's reference to national, religious and ethnic attributes of editors objectionable. You argue that "the famous" quote was an isolated incident, and that he doesn't do so "routinely" as "I imply". Again, I ask you to research the matter, or ask dab's appraisal, and if you are unsatisfied, you may come back to me and I will attempt to clarify the matter for you.

You ask if I can imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once, but repeatedly. Of course I can. Although those defending dab's behavior have stated that his comment was an "error", as far as I am aware, he has never stated that his comment was an "error". Further, if dab had wished to avoid having his comment brought up repeatedly, the easiest course of action he could have taken, which would have taken all of maybe two lines, would have been to apologize for any unintended offense that he may have caused. I am sure that would have greatly reduced the occurances where his comments were brought up to him. I warned him long ago that he had harmed his relationship with Indians, and that an apology would be a wise course. However, instead of heading this advice, he attacked the messenger, as you seem to be inclined to do.

Your comment that "not investing the time to truly check your premises ... is outright negligent". I had asked dab recently why he was treating me as a troll. I was therefore thankful that he gave an honest answer, and I have no intention of berating him for explaining why he may have had a bad impression of me. However, for him, it was a conjecture that I had not read the Arbcom case, or the Rajput dispute before coming to him. You however, have turned his conjecture into a fact. If you care to research the matter, you will see that I did do my research prior to bringing the matter up with dab.

Thank you again for your comments. Although I do not agree with them, I think it is important to keep lines of communication open, and to hear what each other has to say. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab

Hi. Sorry if you feel I'm intrusive. I've been watching the discussions around the now famous quote of Dab. Let me tell you what I feel. Dab's presumption that Bhadaniji was a troll is completely unacceptable (howmuchever understandable). However, I stand with him on the other issue that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians. It was intended to be offensive to the person(s) he was referring to not "Indians in general". This I say after initially taking exception to his comment in an RfC and then reading his clarification and his "apology" if people had (understandably) mistakenly associated a "sh*thole" with an "arsehole" (as I did). He has given a link to this instance in his comment on your userpage. After providing that, in my opinion, he's right to refuse to discuss that matter further. What do we expect from a person constantly being asked the same question over and over again based on the same mistaken assumption? I share somewhat similar views as that of Hornplease expressed here and Lupo elsewhere. Please assume good faith on this and let go of this. I'd strongly urge Dab to apologise to Bhadaniji for calling him a troll. -- Sundar 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sundar, I assume you have good intentions, so if you are intrusive, I forgive you. However, it does place a burden upon me to explain how our views might differ. You write that you agree with dab that

"that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians."

I am not aware that dab has apologized for unintended offense, or stated that his comments merit such an apology. Perhaps I have overlooked something, or perhaps we have different views regarding what constitutes an apology. What I have been aware of are comments where he expressed that he has nothing to apologize for, that he owes no-one an apology and a intends to give no apologies. If I am mistaken, please point me to the sentence or sentences where he apologizes.

I also disagree that the "famous" comment is offensive only if misunderstood. I do not believe I suffer from a lack of English comprehension, and so I will try to explain to you at least part of why I think the "famous" comment was inappropriate and offensive.

repeating what I once wrote elsewhere:

It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.

Please read this sentence again:

"there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access."

When discussing allegedly "clueless people", is it necessary to mention that there are more "where they came from"? Was it necessary to mention India? "especially in India"?

You write that dab is right to refuse to discuss the matter further. It is dab's choice whether he wishes to discuss with people whom he has offended or not. I am not aware that anyone is demanding that he discuss, or even demanding that he apologize. That is his business, and whatever profit or loss he receives, that is his business. However, his difficulty in discussing matters in a non-accusatory way, his difficulty in listening to others and treating them with respect, these have a negative effect on the community, and make conflict resolution more difficult.

I am glad that you have asked dab to apologize to Bhadani for calling him a troll. Of course I would completely understand if Bhadani felt that this was insufficient. I notice that you did not ask dab to apologize to anyone else. Perhaps that was an oversight on your part, or perhaps you do not believe that the other persons who dab has directly (or indirectly?) insulted are not positive members of the Misplaced Pages community?

I apologize that my frustration has shown through in this comment. I do not mean to direct it at you, but I must confess that I am frustrated. Sincerely, --BostonMA 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why cetain users like sundar and others are troubling themsleves to justify him. Sundar is saying he got "satisfied" with his "clarification". I will just point out one such clarification.

" no, it appears that Bharatveer has confused "shithole" with "arsehole" (understandable, seeing the fecal association). I do not think that this has anything to do with Indian village culture - Bharatveer 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely ignoring Bharatveer, who seems to have missed the point again, I would like to point out that I dont think dab has to apologise to anyone else. He has explained what his reference was, and nobody who is an established editor on WP should feel in any way personally insulted.

Further, I think your parsing of the famous line is incorrect. "Where they came from" fairly obviously means "out there on the internet", otherwise he would not have had to add especially in India. And it was, obviously, necessary to mention India, given that the context was the Rajput page. Please, let this go. This is precisely the sort of thing that causes non-Indian experts to stop working on India-related pages, and that sort of persecution is something that the encyclopaedia, and its India-related parts in particular, cannot afford.Hornplease 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hornplease, it is normally my practice to respond as best I can (time permitting of course) to comments that have been directed toward me. However, in your comment you say "please let it go". So, I will not respond to any of the points you made, unless you request me to. Thank-you. --BostonMA 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldnt want it to interfere with our primary purpose here, editing. But please, do keep my fears about the ramifications of this sensitivity at the back of your mind. Thanks! Hornplease 05:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, it's my oversight. I'm sorry. I read his statement on your user page saying "I did apologize for any unintended offense ..." along with his clarification quoted below:

I realize for the first time that people have taken "shitholes" to refer to Indians (people). This is obviously a language problem, but I can now understand the outrage. "Shithole" is a colloquial derogatory term for a place, not a person. . I also stress that I never called India a "shithole": the context was a suspicion that extremely aggressive but uneducated redneck editors on Rajput were from remote desert towns that had just got their first internet cafe: A sarcastic statement, but not an attack on Indians or India as a whole, except for the implication that India has shabby towns and uneducated rednecks with internet access (which is obviously just as true of the USA and other countries).

I somehow juxtaposed these too separate comments and decided that he has apologised. Now, I don't know if he did except that he says he did. However, this has not significantly changed my view on him. And, I agree with Hornplease on "especially in India" part since I know the Rajput context in which he made the comment. I feel that it's just different extents to which we assume good faith due to our different levels of agreement with his POV. Anyway, you need not respond to this. -- Sundar 06:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA you have set the truth free. Bhadani has seen the light.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A response

You are mentioned on my talk page

Dear Bhadani, yesterday a message was left on my talk page which mentioned your name, and I responded also mentioning your name. Please let me know if I have said anything inaccurate. (although you need not respond if you do not care to.) I also want to say, that I hope my comment is not read as me offering reconciliation with dbachmann on your behalf. I only wished to point out that my observations of your character, and that in my opinion, you are very forgiving, and if dbachmann were to make an honest effort to reform himself, that your attitude would change accordingly. I apologize for bringing this subject to your attention, while you may prefer peace of mind , but since I have written about you, I felt it was my responsibility. Sincerely, --BostonMA 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My response copied from my talk page

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, like most human beings, I too prefer peace of mind but not at the cost of using wikipedia to pour vomits on the national pride of other wikipedians. I do accept that as a wikipedian, I am a member of an international virtual community, but that does not give me right to rough up the national identities of other wikipedians. Moreover, when I touch my heart and apply my mind, I find that that screen name that you are indicating no longer exists for me: for all practical purpose he has gone beyond the realm of my thoughts. Antyesti may not be the correct word to describe such a situation! I am not at all sure!! And, I do not care to think about him any more: there are 2 million other wikipedians with whom I can continue to interact with and work and continue to add value to the Project without bringing into an element of venomous comments oozing out of my nervous debility at any point of time and under any circumstances. Regards. --Bhadani 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Added after reading some comments on your page: I do not expect any apology from a screen name which no longer exists in my thoughts! "It" no longer exists for me! By the way I do not believe in Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. Please remember WP:AGF: I am not implying that any one here conform to being described as Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. --Bhadani 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Skin of a Lion

Thanks for the note. I feel a bit bad - didn't want to bite a newbie. I really should have checked. Victoriagirl 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your recent note. I, too, am beginning to wonder whether things aren't quite as they seem - but will assume good faith. Since your post, I've received communication from 572766 , to which I've responded . I must say, my sympathy has decreased after investigating the user's first three posts , , . Victoriagirl 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

thanks for your good faith reply. Had you addressed the topic in such a tone from the beginning, my initial reaction would have been much more conciliatory. Since we seem to have established that I do not want to spend more time explaining, and you don't want to spend more time explaining (which is fair enough, but I do not remember ever asking you to do any explaining, or write columns about your opinion of me, in the first place) -- why don't we just drop it? Bhadani has to take responsibility for his own attitude, I am certainly not asking you to talk to him on my behalf. I would just be grateful if you could try and refrain from stirring up unnecessary strife and conflict and just focus on writing articles. If you must keep me "blacklisted" on your userpage, I would prefer that you in all fairness explain the full history of the case (and you will note that many senior editors have recommended you to drop it, to leave me alone, since this is just beating a dead horse and stirring up bad blood for no good reason, as you have indeed succeeded with in Bhadani's case) If we were to clash over a content dispute on some article, I will be very much prepared to listen to your concerns and treat you as a respected contributor. On the other hand, if you or any other editor asked me to enter a debate over disputes and arbitration cases that are long closed and stale, I would again react in precisely the same way: Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum, and I opt to not enter debates that are not directly pertinent to the editing process. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi dab, I have changed my user page in a way that I hope will not present a biased picture of you or of the issue that I have with you. It is in a rough state, but I did not want to "finish" it if there is a possibility that the dispute may be resolved in the near future. I understand that you have another concern occupying your mind right now. I have no intention of harassing you or chasing you down to address my concerns, as I have avoided doing till now. I believe that there have been only two occasions where we crossed paths in the last nine months. I am willing to drop things in that sense. If you want to do your own thing and leave the issues unresolved, I am not going to worry about that (other than to keep my user page up to date, which I had not done previously). However, I am not willing to "drop it" in the sense that I still find your past and present comments highly objectionable, and I still have an issue with them. (If I update my page, I will keep you notified if you like -- let me know one way or the other.) Sincerely, --BostonMA 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. Thank you for your belief that I'd make a good mediator. From your musing, I understand that you don't want to bother Dab at this moment when he's into another issue. I appreciate that, your general amenability, and willingness to listen. Should you require my help for something, feel free to ping me. However, I'm a little hesitant to commit myself into any quasi-formal role as I'm not sure if I'd live upto the expectations because of my yet-to-improve English skills and lack of time. -- Sundar 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right to a voice

Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)