User talk:Blnguyen/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Help

Can you delete the "supposed" sockpuppets of mine so Holywarrior doesn't have another reason to get me blocked? Oh, and thanks for protecting the FeTNA article. Bakaman%% 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, the matter has been dealt with - you were proven to have the sockpuppets and it is kept as a record but there is not potential of double-jeopardy.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So Holywarrior can't screw me over again?Bakaman%% 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No he can't, unless you use sockpuppets again. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can one be awarded Barnster through his own Sock

Plz see the case of User:Bakasuprman and user:TrueBaka;truebaka awards barnster to Bakasuprman,apart from this truebaka have very little contribution history.Does he arrive on wikipedia to award barnster to bakasuprman only???? Is it legal.Can I go to WP:RFCU to report it.Holy |Warrior 09:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude Truebaka is my friend in real life. He only edits videogame articles. And Blnguyen he's your Vietnamese brother, so you wouldn't put a brother down would you? Tell Holywarroir to lay off. Holywarrior is on an anti-Baka crusade. User:Truebaka is NOT my sock. Bakaman%% 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can Holywarrior's persistent attacks be classified as WP:NPA?Bakaman%% 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here, since both of you seem to be looking around. There is nothing in WP:BARN that prohibits the self-awarding of barnstars, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing that stops you from creating a sockpuppet to award yourself barnstars either, since self-awarded barnstars are not prohibited. For example User:Anwar saadat tried to remove "fake" barnstars from User:Prin and User:The Man's Plans, but this was reverted. In general, it doesn't really matter, because barnstars are not the most accurate measure of one's contributions to the site, as some editors quietly contribute a lot, while others seem to get barnstars from their friends for things which may seem a little soft. However, barnstars are usually held in higher regard when "acknowledged" by more experienced and established editors. Of course, this is based on the assumption that Bakasuprman is being vain, which isn't a very good idea, eg see WP:AGF. So no, there is no grounds for an WP:RFCU, and persistently doing so may give you a poor reputation or a perception that you may be harassing other editors over frivolous matters.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, in case Holy is watching TrueBaka is NOT my sockpuppet. He's just my best bud and Baka was our clan name in videogames, which we transferred to Wikipedia. You don't have to respond to this, I'm just stating thr facts. Thanks for listening to my rants (keeps you busy since Netaji is on break).Bakaman%% 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying to both of you.Infact I was just seeking advice from a senior wikipedian---nothing wrong with that I suppose.Had it been illegal I had reasons to suspect.Thanks a lot to both of you.Holy |Warrior 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Theres nothing illegal (even to suspect) and I would advise HolyWarrior to keep his conspiracy theories and lies to himself. As you can see [1] he is harrassing me and also I unhatched a conspiracy by him and BhaiSaab to get me blocked [2]. Rama's Arrow said they have no case but I don't think he is an admin, so I'm asking you to check it out.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, unfortunately Rama's Arrow is not an administrator, his RfA went a bit awry in an unnecessary way. As I said before, to investigate another user over barnstars may lead to a poor reputation for pettiness. I'll reply to the RfC thing below. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page (User:BhaiSaab but this is has turned into debate about Bakasuprman and HolyWarrior also)

If that was a personal attack, I apologize. BhaiSaab talk 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't said something similar at User talk:Bakasuprman considering the amount of similar statements he has made on the same page. BhaiSaab talk 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If Bhaisaab did not see this quote, "it may not be the best idea to complain too much in case you do not want others to complain about yourself." By complaining about D-boy and Netaji, he invited us to scrutinize everything he says. D-boy told BhaiSaab to lay off and Netaji isn't here (wikibreak) so he asked me to represent our interests. I am merely putting everything in context (espicially with dab and Holywarrior). Bakaman%% 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I will look into it. As you can see, I seem to get more messages about Indian disputes than the Indian administrators here, and it would be more convenient if you were to provide diffs for quick service. I seem to spend a lot (most) of time trawling through the contribs list of certain controversial contributors rather than editing in the last month. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, here are some diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6].
I found the first diff pretty funny. He says "there is no need for personal attacks on D-Boy" while simultaneously attacking two other users. BhaiSaab talk 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, coming from a person that violated 3RR [7]. Yes I know he did not get blocked, but I got blocked by an admin (unfairly, BhaiSaab never notified me of the copyright case) for "copyright vandalism" before I could make my case. He was confronted by three users on the Indian caste system page. At first he stated [8] "this is all copyvio from http://www.boloji.com/history/018.htm". Then in the talk page he starts to unravel [9] when he starts spitting out the other pages it is sourced from. User:Pecher stated that there was "no reason given to delete well-sourced and relevant material" while D-boy reverted it. BhaiSaab vandalized the page while stating in the talk section [10] "I am under no obligation to rewrite the material" after being confronted by myself and Pecher. Just yesterday, User:Krsont and I almost went into an edit war but managed to discuss the issue in a constructive manner [11] and [12]. Unlike Krsont who contributed to the page, BhaiSaab did nothing but VANDALIZE it, then sneakily get me blocked for "vandalism" while he made 5 reverts and took off the whole section on the Muslim caste system (something I doubt even the "pak" would do). Bakaman Bakatalk 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I enjoy the last diff [13], which did not qualify as any sort of violation. In fact it was a CONTRIBUTION.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The 3rr issue is already settled. Admin Stifle excused me because I was removing copyrighted material, and you were blocked by for continually inserting it by admin (aeropagitica). Don't involve Blnguyen needlessly when other admins have already reviewed this problem (as Blnguyen seems to have enough on his/her plate to deal with). The last diff shows you attacking Holywarrior. And who is "the pak"? BhaiSaab talk 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In the first four diffs cited by BhaiSaab, I can see that there is an inappropriate attempt to discredit other user's arguments based on their perceived religious bias or editing bias (which may or may not be true). Regardless of whether it is true, it is inappropriate to use a person's personal attack habits to create a diversion from the debate on whether content of the Fundy Watch page is appropriate or not. If you have a problem with someone's conduct please report it in the appropriate forum for dealing with personal attacks rather than as a leverage in a content debate. Secondly, the last diff, has one comment which is informative about Hindu politics, but the second shows you claiming that HolyWarrior likes to attack people. That is irrelevant to the content debate and if you would like me to deal with HolyWarrior please cite the diffs here or on WP:PAIN. Definitely referring to someone as the "pak" is not a good idea, as I told Netaji before, User:bormalagurski, a Serb-nationalist, was given 14 days for creating a list on his userpage of those he considered to be "fake" Serbs. The blocks over WP:3RR and vandalism seems rather sticky, so I will seek a briefing from User:Stifle and User:(aeropagitica) about them, as I certainly didn't see any vandalism on the part of either user, as it is a content dispute, so I need some info on the reasoning behind Bakasuprman's block and as for the civility cited by (aeropagitica), it would seem that the testy nature of the allegations would be about a par for the course in this sphere of editing. I haven't looked at the copyvio thing yet either. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

I was blocked for no good reason by an admin who had no knowledge of the situation and became hostile when confronted. Stifle himself stated the whole thing was not copyrighted. I was blocked (unfairly) before I could present a response (infact I was typing it) and then you got let off the hook. Anyways, removing the WHOLE section on the MUSLIM CASTE SYSTEM was unwarranted, infact you stamped your POV on the page with your lies as Pecher, myself and D-boy pointed out.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea to accuse other people of lying. It may be an honest mistake, eg, have you seen how difficult it is to prove that people have lied in court, senate inquiries, rather than give incorrect info out of ignorance. It is quite difficult to prove that someone has provided knowingly false info, and constitutes a personal attack. If someone does give dubious information on a recurring basis, people will automatically distrust them....Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(also posted at Talk:Indian caste system) I looked at the the 3RR report, added my comments, and although it is quite complex, (took about 30m to analyse), I can tell you that the whole text of the section was a subset of the websites given. Some of the sentences of the website aren't used, and some are used with half the sentence cut off, but definitely, everything that was in the article, was in the other website. Yes, the material should be rewritten, but copyvios need to be removed, so it is the correct thing to remove the copyvio pending a rewrite, rather than keep the copyvio pending a rewrite. Regardless of who is willing or unwilling to do the rewrite, the copyvio should be removed in the meantime. And please stop carrying on saying the other party is engaging in vandalism when there is none, that is a form of personal attack. As for my comments to User:(aeropagitica) that there was no vandalism by Bakasuprman, this still holds, there wasn't vandalous material - there is no contradiction, as it was sourced, but it is also a copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Bakaman has claimed many times that I have done some policy violation.Even I don't know where??? I too would like to see some diffs.Infact what I could read from behaviour of Netaji, Baka and others they are indeed a kind of union whose actions cannot be appreciated, many newcommers too are falling into their fold which is equally unfortunate.Holy|Warrior 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Making racist reamrks like Holywarrior has ([14]

, [15], & [16] ) gives him the authority to decide whose actions can be appreciated? Bakaman Bakatalk 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how these are racist? I think they are about religious wind-ups and are quite imflammatory and unnecessary, although it seems a two-way street also. Can you guys explain how this is related to the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, because it seems like there is a Christian misionary vs Hindu argument which raised the relgious ideologies quite a lot. I'm having a think about this kind of behaviour.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps personal attacks [17]? HolyWarrior is an anti-Hindu wikipedian. He chalenged a Brahmin user (caste doesn't matter, but User:Babub is WELL versed in the Vedas) on the MfD page. If there was a fundywatch page, HolyWarrior would be up top.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. This is quite incivil, and is out of order, suggesting that another user needs help. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not even aware about caste of Babub,and don't care even.The situation and article's POV (which reflect only one side of Brahmin,but actually it has got many meanings)demanded such a reaction from my side.I just intended to bring out true meaning of Brahmin.The sentence which follows thereafter from Babub as reaction is intended to mislead the readers,who knows little about the affair,I just didn't want to induldge in mudslinging there ,hence refrained from answering following questions raised,which were merely aimed at misleading others.He tried to build similar situation in a another afd (Hindu politics) where I did answer.Baka is using the comments in similar vein.It would be better for a person to actually venture into those disambiguation links which shall expose the truth behind the reaction of these people.Holy|Warrior 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman states that "Stifle himself stated the whole thing was not copyrighted." That's right he did (initially), but I was able to show that the parts that he thought were not copyrighted were indeed copied from those two websites as you can see from Stifle's talkpage. Bakaman continues to assume bad faith branding my statements as lies. BhaiSaab talk 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You still have no justification for vandalizing the page. You have not CONTRIBUTED in any way, at first you said the whole thing was from one page, then when questioned you say "oh I found other sources". The material was sourced. "Assuming bad faith" - Well a vandal that gets me blocked (by sneaky underhanded tactics) doesn't deserve good faith.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please refrain from adding bogus allegations of "vandalism". It constitutes a personal attack. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have justification for "vandalizing" the page. It was all copyrighted. "The material was sourced." So what? I don't care if copyrighted material is sourced and neither does Wikipedia policy. Blnguyen, you can leave this issue alone if you want to, as it seems you have a lot to deal with. If it goes further, then I may proceed to RfC. Thanks for your help though. BhaiSaab talk 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced, and as I said before, not a work of vandalism. Although, it is copyrighted, so the removal was appropriate. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:Vandalism states "Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism." BhaiSaab talk 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see, please don't use that term, simply use copyright as vandalism is quite an emotional term which implies bad-faith behaviour. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See he just threatens me with RfC when I CONTRIBUTE to the page, and he vandalizes it "stating copyright". I have better things to do on wiki (like CONTRIBUTE) than waste my time RfC , RfA or being trigger happy with WikiCitations.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I may file an RfC is not a threat so please stop complaining as if it is. Especially if you've done nothing wrong, what have you got to fear? At this point, WP:DFTT comes to mind. Thank you and have a nice day. BhaiSaab talk 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen you mightwant to check this out. I feel the word "pack" may be in order [18]. Looks like they want to gang up on me. It is a threat because BhaiSaab wants me banned, just for voting support on the MfA and contributing to the caste page. In holywarrior's case I'm guessing because Netaji is gone, he found his opportunity to get at Hindu wikipedians, because Netaji makes a lot of noise, and would crush him. Bakaman Bakatalk 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC doesn't lead to a ban, the WP:ARBCOM can ban you with a simple majority, or an overwhelming consensus of the community can be used to ban you (probably 70-80%).Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to Blnguyen for adressing RFC.I had very few comments on california textbook controversy after which I was added into the HIT LIst by Fundywatch brigade,Some of whom are still pursuing their, now infamous and Widely condemned Agenda, and labelling allegations against me in RFC without any proofs.I have full faith in Blnguyen for his proven record of neutrality and would like to see outcome of entire debate here.I am yet to see any proof of allegations made on me,here or anywhere.I would be rather grateful to anyone who can bring it to my notice that I have done any kind of policy violation.Rather I have remained cool against continual bickering from this brigade. Holy|Warrior 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record I apologized to User:Ragib. I saw I got too carried away with the remarks I made concerning him. But I don't apologize for anything I said to BhaiSaab and Holywarrior.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not baiting Bakaman on Holywarrior's page - I was merely being sarcastic. I don't even know what "baiting" on Wikipedia is supposed to mean. BhaiSaab talk 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? I caught you two red-handed trying to blacken my name on Wikipedia. I see now that a WikiStalker and a racist have joined hands against a Contributor. Look at the Rfc [19]Bakaman Bakatalk 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, I think people are notified in RFC's when the other party is actually done with their edits on such. That RFC is not even valid, and I didn't contribute to it. I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, such as "Wikistalker" and "racist", as several people have warned you about this already. BhaiSaab talk 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I don't see BhaiSaab writing on the RfC, nor do I see him encouraging Holywarrior on their talk page dialogue. As I told you before, simply cite the diffs and the policies which have been broken without using general terms like "stalk" and "racist" - and as I noted above, in the diffs from Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy. Hinduism and Christianity are religions not races. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Several? Oh wait your Buddy Timothy Usher who harrasses D-boy [20]? I won't tone down the rhetoric until you stop attacking myself and D-boy. Incidentally if you didn't notice I apologized to Ragib (he was innocent) and decided to contribute to Bengali articles that he created. The only people who supposedly "warned" me are you, Holyarrior, and Timothy Usher.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know you have no plans to tone your rhetoric down. BhaiSaab talk 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me you won't stop harrassing and attacking me.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The post by BhaiSaab is unnecessary and unhelpful and Bakasuprman's re-response assumes bad faith, which is inappropraite. Do you guys want a peace and ceasefire? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab and Bakaman

Hi Stifle. Could you point me to the info for this 3RR issue please? Bakasuprman and BhaiSaab have been sparring for a while now, the subcontinental religious stuff has flared up lately and I have a lot of notices on my talk page (from around 10 people) to intervene in a range of disputes and it gets hectic trawling through the edits of a dozen editors every day for possible misdemaenours. Its good to be careful since in this region of editing, there have been a lot of bogus reports like "vandalism" against "opposition" editors in an attempt to discredit them (one person even asked me to do a checkuser to see if another had been using socks to award themselves barnstars !?!?!). I'm just wondering because the two guys were arguing about their blocks for each other and they didn't seem to show that either of them were correct. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

a reply on my talk page would be good, as there is also a lot of related, overlapping stuff being discussed there already. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be at WP:AN3#User:BhaiSaab_reported_by_User:Bakaman.25.25_.28Result:_No_block.29. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I made a comment there and at Talk:Indian caste system. The text is all copyvio, it was a subset of the webiste, with some sentences omitted and truncated. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! It's very late here in the UK and I have had a long day, complete with needing to be in two places simultaneously and a three-hour trip to ER/ Casualty (no breaks or fractures to the metatarsals, just a lot of bruising that should disappear in a week). My Talk page seems to have turned in to a debating chamber for a couple of Indian editors, so I will give a comprehensive reply tomorrow afternoon UK time after work. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again! Clearly the relationships between the Indian editors are contentious and contain many points of equivocation. I was not aware of this when the request for admin attention was posted to WP:AIV. My reason for the temporary block was to cool the debate down, as the language used seemed hotter than I usually encounter in such matters. As you observe above and I now appreciate, this language usage is more common between this group of editors than in the general population. My reasons for the block were the copying of material from two websites on to the article:
Material taken from:
I gather that this section is to be reviewed and rewritten to obviate such copyright issues. Civility difs I found were:
This does appear to have been blown out of all proportion by the editors concerned. I now appreciate that what originally appeared to be a relatively simple case of cooling off has some history behind it and that this group of editors and the nature of the material to which they contribute is rather more devisive than could be appreciated on a first scan. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It has been brought to my attention that copyright is a form of vandalism, although I personally try to avoid using such language. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind ups again

"Yes, and there are no such problems in your beloved country Paapistan, right? (Separatist movements in Balochistan, Osama in Waziristan, mad mullahs everywhere). Go ahead. Root for Pakistan. Then I'll be there to watch when you are forced into Dhimmitude and Ajraf-hood and get shot at by LeT.Netaji 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC) "- And this is not offensive and a wind up ? Haphar 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes these are definitely not acceptable, and I have told him before many times to stop insinuating that other Indian users are "pak". Does "Paapistan" have any meaning or just something he made up. Also, it would be helpful to explain to me what "Dhimmitude" and "ajraf-hood" means. I think LEt is refrence to Laskar-e-Toiba, is this correct? Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Paapistan - Land of Sinners - ridicule of Pakistan which means Land of Holies
Dhimmitude - Dhimmi means protected - persons under Islamic rule who were obliged to pay a tax different to the religious tax - Zakat applied to Muslims.This is a popular terminology among Islam bashers like Daniel Pipes
Ajraf - I dont know but I remember seeing in the factlet pushed by one of the authors that it has something to with the alleged lower caste among Muslims.
Hindu right wing in India suspect Muslim's allegiance to the country hence the term Pak or Paki against them
LeT is correctly - Lashkar-e-Toiba previously a militant movement in Kashmir but recently involved in terrorist activities in many countries.TerryJ-Ho 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Both are now blocked. Subhash for 72 hours, Haphar 48hrs for continually returning fire - declaring at Talk:Hindutva that he will stoop to Subhash's level is an inappropriate declaration of hostile intent, especially when one lodges a complaint about another's behaviour immdiately afterward. BTW, Subhash has been asked to remove his legal threat unconditionally, to avoid a permanent ban. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky & Underhanded (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bakasuprman)

Without notifying me, Holywarrior and Bhaisaab have created two pages to malign me [21] & [22]. I resent these sneaky tactics to discredit me.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a notification of when the RfC is posted, did he do this? The RfC needs to have two people trying to solve the same problem with you. There is no evidence that two people have the same problem with you. In any case, the RfC isn't formatted properly and definitely the first two entries aren't even diffs and also, the first is a resolved content dispute, not a personal attack, the second is personal attacks by User:Subhash bose,and are formatted as sections not diffs. Also, as I pointed out in the Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy above, throwing stones at another may lead to his own record being scrutinised, which is not the best. I think perhaps a ceasefire would be in order and perhaps I get a few other Indian admins to look at the stuff on that talk page for a second opinon. And after your own testy dialogue it is not the best way to respond to another person's claims of impropreity by launching into more hostilities, which may prove their point. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
He was notified of Third party arbitration on my talk page,where he pasted npa warning---I had tried to get other user to file the RFC,after which he would have been notified properly.But because nobody cosigned it---It was incomplete---and let us see if someone joins it in 48 hours---after which it automatically dies out.Regarding issue resolution ,this person was told many times at many ocassions to mend his ways.At Cal.TExt by Dab,In Afd by Rajib(where he abused everyone who voted against his will),here too you are almost daily feeding him.With so many people who had disputes against him and so many people trying to resolve with him,I thought it was proper to go for RFC,when he started testing the limits of my patience.Holy|Warrior 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No I suspected you were up to something. He never notified ME at all. He kept it on his talk page. In fact, if I hadn't suspected he was up to no good, I would not have seen the RfC. But its ok, I mean only a vandal and a racist buy that story of vandalism, and "personal attacks".Bakaman Bakatalk 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to see that User:BhaiSaab has brought a personal attack notice against me, (without warning me) [23]. Bakaman Bakatalk 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Noted below. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That controversy

Hello and thanks for your recent message. Perhaps I shall not be able to do anything as I am not aware of the matters in-depth. In case, I find some information, I would surely come back. As regards you, I have full faith in your ability to handle such issues. --Bhadani 10:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW could you resove this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Image:Star_Collection.jpg Thanks. --Bhadani 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

I'm keeping a record of hate attacks made against me. I don't care what BS and HW think, but I need to keep it so that I have a record of their actions.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He got me blocked today for [24] where he dug up edits I made prior to learning about WP:NPA and even before I was welcomed by User:Deepujoseph. Also I have apologized to User:Ragib and decided to assist him in Wikiproject:Bengal. With Hornplease I took out the so called controversial edits. He continues to act in bad faith, going through each and every one of my diffs to dig up dirt. Its unfair how I am being persecuted for my difference of views. Also the blocking admin User:Tom harrison became hostile [25] when I confronted him about how BhaiSaab never notified me about the WP:PAIN case [26]. I request you to tell BhaiSaab to stop harrassing me while I am trying to CONTRIBUTE to wiki. He also baited me thrice today ([27], [28], [29]). He is pretending to try dispute resolution here but then goes to admins unaware of the situation spouting (RfA,RFC PAIN) cases and getting me blocked. I have gotten blocked twice in the last three days, both of which were unwarranted.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The first block, the wording is unfortunate, I do not feel that copyrights are vandalism, but it was a clear infringement. I feel that the second block, clearly shows that the admin only took into account the latest stuff or went light, because 3 hours is a very short block for anything. I feel that you have been abrasive, making comments accusing others of being "liars" is inappropriate whilst you are seeking sanction against other users and seeking mediation. Also I noticed on Haphar's page in the last two days, since this mediation started, that you claimed that Lkadvani had taught him how to lie, which is a pretty big personal attack. So I'd say that you've been getting off lightly so far, although I still haven't gotten around to investigating what Holywarrior has said since this process began - I was thinking of an ceasefire/amnesty/parole agreement for the stuff that happened before then where there has been a case of two sides exchanging fire (except for the serious stuff of course). Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But he goes around you, he solicits blocks from other admins, while I wait for you only to do the mediation. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after being targeted unresonably by BhaiSaab, I can't trust him to hold a ceasefire. Haphar accused me of being Netaji's sockpuppet when Netaji is CLEARLY on WikiBreak.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

On the Hate attack page could you reformat your responses. They give the false impression that you warned me three times on it and were used by BhaiSaab as ammo instead of showing that he baited me and escalated the situation before you intervened. Bakaman Bakatalk 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The religious war

Hi Blnguyen. I spent a little while reviewing the situation. It was good of you to lead the attempts to resolve this. Looks like all the major contributors were de-escalating somewhat until recently. I'd let the relevant RfC continue, and block particulars preventatively for egregious behaviour. My guess is that the California textbook talk page will cool down quickly. Beyond that, I don't know what to say. It's a tough one for sure. -- Samir धर्म 04:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/n/User_talk%7EBlnguyen_Archive16_2f9b.html"