User talk:Blnguyen/Archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removing Sockpupeteer Box 2 How many times can one be blocked and be warned and get away 3 Babri Mosque 4 Bias 5 Hello 6 Subhash Bose talk page 7 Response requested 8 Inappropriate Name 9 Vandalism 10 The unofficial Indian disputes mediator 11 Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America 12 Thanks for unblock 13 question 14 Leh 15 Need advice with a possible issue with User:Holywarrior 16 Kancha Ilaiah

[edit] Removing Sockpupeteer Box

Can you please let us know under what circumstances this edit is acceptable [1]62.189.60.30

It isn't. I will put it back if it hasn't already been done so. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is currently being repeatedly removed and reinserted. Please voice your opinion on Subhash bose's talkpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many times can one be blocked and be warned and get away

Are there any rules on Wikipedis that prohibit such users?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.60.30 (talk • contribs) .

Um, it is prohibited for an administrator to unilaterally and indefinitely ban/block such users when the user is not a pure vandalism/trolling account. If the account tries to participate seriously to article contribution, as is the case with everyone here, then they can only be blocked unilaterally for making threats against other users, such as death threats/legal threats etc. If you would like to get a ban on Netaji or Bakasuprman, or you would like to get rid of me, then you can got to WP:RFC an lodge a request for comment, or go directly to WP:RFARB and seek a ruling from the arbitration committee, or if you think it is serious enough, go to Admin noticeboard and get a consensus for "exhausting community patience". Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean like User:Anwar_saadat? Also, Netaji has contributed quite a bit to Hinduism related articles, unlike you, who put unsubstantiated garbage on the Rama page, and tried to vandalize the Babri and Ram Janmabhoomi page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling edits from other users as garbage and yours as the ultinate truth.You again showed your fascist right wing hindu mentality in this edit [2]. WP is not your advertising medium.TerryJ-Ho

Stop calling other people fascists. You're the only one here who hasn't been blocked for personal attacks, do you want to stay that way? Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Correction - He also has gotten blocked for personal attacks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My reference is to the organisation [RSS] that has been documented in media as well as respected politicians to have a fascist attitude.I was extending the same logic to their supporters.However, it is testing my patience - as in reality I wish to contribute to the Wikipedia in a journalistic way, edits from these agents are however either twisting the facts either subtly or blatantly and bringing out the bad in most of the other authors.TerryJ-Ho

We wouldn't "bring out the bad" if there was no "bad to "bring out".Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility, that too in Blnguyen's page. You must have a lot of "chutzpah".Netaji 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my responses on this affair.[3] and kindly note how some of my quotes were misleadingly used for eliciting support.Have I ever called you fascist? The user admits to his Sangh bias and mentions that I called him Hindu Taliban.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]TerryJ-Ho

[edit] Babri Mosque

I have issued a vandalism warning to BhaiSaab due to his edits on the Babri Mosque page. A list of my justifications can be found here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] To him everything that is not pro-Muslim is either copyvio or Original research neither of which I did. I took careful looks at WP:OR and my sentence on the Muslims lack of proof is verifiable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: He has removed justifiable vandalism template.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've told you many times that it is clearly a content dispute as BhaiSaab has explained his objections before. I'll have to give you another 30 minute block for unnecessary disruption caused by adding bogus warning tags again. I also noted another bogus call of vandalism against that anon above. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

For you to block me, after I have restrained and responded a week after Neta's provocation, is not balanced, specially when you did not block the person who is causing the whole issue. Again i have waited for some time to respond so as to not be angry in the response, but it still does not take away from the fact that your attempt to look into details have been extremely one sided. Neta is rude , obnoxious and has on n occaisions made personal remarks about n individuals. If I have done anything it has been in "response" to and the language/ remarks have been as a result of his continued hostility. For you to overlook all his transgressions ( I had posted windups before also, to which you did not even bother to reply) and to block someone who is responding shows a bias as well as a not so balanced side. Your personal issues with me over the religion category may have coloured your opinion but it has shown me that you are not a fair and objective admin Haphar 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Netaji was blocked for three days as opposed to your 2 days in that incident and I remind you again that even if the "other party" starts the battle, this does not give you the right to return fire in ways that could inflame the situation (Your counter-declaration of hostility at Talk:Hindutva as well as on his page). Blocks are meant to restrain users from confrontation, and seeing as you were not able to restrain yourself from replying to his comments, I had to stop you from posting also because it would only inflame the situation. As I said before, if someone makes a ridiculous comment, just report it and let the words discredit themselves rather than stooping to their level. Action has and will be taken against editors who engage in inappropriate speech. Netaji has been blocked for a total of 14 days? 12 of them by me for his personal conduct towards other users, so I cannot see where I have blocked you for reporting him but not blocking him (the offender). As for the thing about the Sikh cricketers, I let the Sikh cats stay and didn't bother disagreeing with you, and let me say that in the last week I have cleaned up and expanded biographies on Monty Panesar and Yuvraj Singh (who many people believe to be Sikh) and have nominated the Yuvraj page for Didi you know on the main page and am now on my way to improving the Harbhajan Singh page. If you feel that I am being anti-Sikh and should not administrate anything to do with Sikhs then you are welcome to come to the Indian noticeboard, User talk:Nichalp (Indian bureaucrat) and ask if they feel that I should step away from India disputes or post a WP:RFC to investigate my actions or to go to WP:ANI and express your concerns to the administrators or seek binding sanctions from the WP:RFARB against me. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this person's comments.How blatantly these two editors Subhash and Baka - say they are not liberals and secular and carry on edits to support organisations that India's first prime minister called "Indian Version of Fascism".Their edits are either to promote an alternate version of history based on the superiority of Hinduism and ancient Hindu India's dominance or wesel words to hide the activities of the organisations they support banned on many occasions in India.They have even written racial Anti Whites comments.They call other users with slurs and call other users as terrorist supporters.It is high time their activities on Wikipedia are stopped.They are using the facilities of WP to promote and advertise their organisations.TerryJ-Ho

Well, with regards to personal behaviour, Baka has been blocked for about three days, Netaji about 12, you none and Haphar 2. If you feel that Netaji and Baka's edits are riddled with incurably disruptive and tendentious POV-pushing, then you will have to go to WP:MEDCAB for request article mediation, then go to formal mediation if required...If you think there is no hope you can go and seek WP:RFARB to seek a sanction as the ArbCom is the only group who can. If you feel that "exhausting the community's patience" applies then go the WP:ANI and propose a ban (you need a strong consensus 75+ whereas arbcom only needs 50+). Aside from blocking people for poor personal behaviour I have not interfered in the article disputes except for locking the page, so I am not responsible and have not made myself responsible for article disputes. If you believe my blocks for personal behaviour have been unfair, you can pursue the same avenues that I suggested to Haphar above. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Neta has been going around abusing people, calling them names and even wishing them to get killed. That is not the same as reverting. And for almost all of these above mentioned issues he was NOT blocked, those issues were 3RR as well as sockpuppetry. Most of his trasgressions have been unpunished. Even now after he expressed a wish to get me killed by islamic terrorists, you had just put a comment saying do not call Haphar a paki and not done anything, so I reverted to him AND brought the more damaging than the paki lines to your attention. And then I get blocked for reverting to HIS reverts ? I did not break the 3RR rule, I am reverting to someone who is calling me names and is reverting to most things that I am putting in. How come Neta has not been blocked for similiar things ? I "respond" to someone who calls me names, and I am in the same category as the name caller ? And the name calling has been going on for months, AND was brought to your notice earlier ( with no reaction) wheras without anyone bringing things to your notice you saw it fit to warn me.

I have NEVER said in my above post that you are anti Sikh. So all your "rantings" ( since you call it a rant line yourself) about the "service" you have done to Sikh cricketers is not required. You had an issue with a stance I took on religious categories and that seems to have an impact on your neutrality.

I have referred cases like Neta's not only to you but the "suggested" pages and found no response, so your own case being referred would meet the same fate, It is not worth the effort. Live on with your biases it will cause you greater problems than getting it resolved.

Haphar 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did block and have blocked Netaji, for longer periods. Sometimes it is difficult to block because the reporter has himself made comments that are out of order at the same time, unless both are to be blocked.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see how the admin would react if someone wrote in print that the person would look forward to getting him killed, and how the admin would react when the same person has earlier made comments about the admins family being killed/maimed and raped by terrorists. And how the admin would feel that despite all this hostility the user has not been blocked for such incivility but for minor issues like 3RR. And all this from a sockpuppeteer who has lied to protect himself before. There is where the "tolerance level" being higher for an abusive uncivil editor of the admin baffles one. Saying one would stoop to the level is not the same as calling another names or wishing him dead. Haphar 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason he has been blocked for 17 days and you 2 for your counter attacks and declaration of hostility. Which explains the above. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As is 'Ho. 'Ho here has consistently exhibited anti-Hindu tendencies and Hindu holocaust denial. Now, he, together with Haphar, are trying to attack Blnguyen with allegations of bias in favor of lil' ol' me? Blnguyen blocked me for 10 days once. If anything, I should be yelling and screaming at him for bias against me. However, while (IMHO) he has been rather harsh with his punishments, he has listened to reason and argued his points logically, instead of going off into childish temper tantrums unlike certain other users involved in this debacle. That's increasingly scarce on wikipedia these days...Netaji 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Blnguyen is the fairest admin I know, for sure. He blocked me for three days also. Since you refer to Hindu leader as fascists, why are you helping out a documented Israel-hater on the Babri, Guju violence, and Ram Janmabhoomi articles? Israel haters are real fascists. Most admins like the one that blocked me for no reason, are mad with power and are extremely trigger happy with blocks. Infact, TerryJho, Holywarrior etc. are lucky admins like Gizza aren't trigger happy. Otherwise they would be blocked faster than you can say "Bigot". Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason why you have been blocked so many timesTerryJ-Ho

There is little logic in your "arguments" and a whole lot of useless name-calling.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - TerryJHo went to MedCab but did not get whatever ban or block or w/e he wanted. he said we wish to "distort the truth" and that we are "fascist". This is like Holywarriors RfC fiasco.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Baka and Neta are a part of a cabal, they regularly message each other and a couple of users to get them to revert and save them from breaking the 3RR rule. So both of you singing someone's praise would only reduce his credibility .Cabal's are not encouraged but the "vigilant" "neutral and fair" admin is not going to notice this even if the evidence is presented to him on a platter Haphar 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Haphar and Anwar saadat were part of a cabal too till saadat got spanked. Plus, haphar has been trying to attract his own cabal in Islamophobia article and got spanked there too.Netaji 12:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Anwar nor I have ever written to each other to get help or save ourselves from a 3rr

violation, nor have we alerted each other about articles and other users. We both got into disputes with Neta around the same time. I noticed an accusation of sock puppetry by Anwar, and found a "statement" used by Neta also used by his puppet in a talk page discussion with me, and commented on the similiarity of the comment. Which caused Neta to get on the offensive with me ( and we all remember who got what treatment so let's not comment on spankings here)- And Mr Neutral Secular Admin who has reverted in the above discussion ? And who is trying wind ups about "spankings" ? And who is not getting a warning on wind ups  ? And who is making false accusations of vandalism and cabals ? ( you can check talk pages of all to see who has a cabal and who does not). Also making sure people know of an issue that is being ignored despite it being reported is not trying to form a cabal, and from the people getting onto the "discussion" with Neta it's pretty clear whose behind is getting some attention. Haphar 13:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

TerryJ-Ho and user Geek1975 made a "cabal". Actually on ANI you and TerryJHo and BhaiSaab were taking turns attacking Netaji. As for him and BhaiSaab and "antisemite" and stuff, BhaiSaab has made racist comments against Israel, which Bl can show you at his leisure. Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You also accused me of being neta's sock [14]? I have over 1900 edits, 500 more than yourself. Your Cabal (formerly known as the pak) is composed of (TerryJ-Ho, Geek1975, Haphar and sometimes Disinterested and Wikindian). I have more edits than you, Lkadvani, TerryJ-Ho and Geek1975 put together. Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The spankings comment is pretty much polite talk in this sphere of editing from all parties and if I were to block him for that, a lot of what you have said would also get a block. As for the thing that "Mr Neutral Secular Admin" reverted on the talk page, replied below. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello there...I agree that there are many offending parties in that debate. Actually, as you probably saw, I had to warn Haphar for incivility in the middle of my report on Subhash. I just felt like, overall, Subhash was the worst offender in all of this. Haphar and the others have had problems with being civil but they've shown some inkling to at least follow our policies some of the time. I see none of that from Subhash, as shown by all of his blocks. So that is why I blocked him. Plus, he essentially declared that he was going to no longer AGF. Basically ever. And I just don't see a way around that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never done a "complex" RfAr. In other words, one of those "all editors involved in editing xxxx" type cases. But this situation might be a good one for something like that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably easier to stick to using blocks where necessary. I don't think that if we asked these guys to go to arbitration they would do anything for pure misbehaviour not particularly related to a stuck content dispute and would rather we calm them down first. It's also normal that each time Subhash gets blocked all the others come and trash-talk on his page...pretty normal, which is one of the reasons why we never get anywhere.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting his userpage. I thought my statement might halt the arguments, but apparently not. They truly act like this is a message board where you can flame people and say anything you want to. Oi. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like people are posting each others' NPA laundry on random talk pages now...Blnguyen | rant-line 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subhash Bose talk page

Hello Blnguyen. You protected Subhash Bose's talk page so I thought I should inform you I have opened a new sockpuppet case involving him. Please paste the appropriate notice on his user talk page as I cannot do so myself. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected his page.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response requested

I had reported comments to you from Neta earlier too[15]. And got no reponse. Then I had posted these comments 2 days later on islamic fundamentalism page. Including the details of the user who posted them. Today the user deleted them, so I put the comment back. And you have removed them again so I would like to ask you a question. Here is some of what Neta had said on my talk page "There is only one kind of Islam. The kind that blows things up" and " I'm not upset about fundamentalism in Islam because there is no fundamentalism in Islam. Islam ITSELF is 'fundamentalist', in the sense of Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of women, ie I-S-L-A-M."

My question is :-Are these comments on Islam made by a user acceptable as per wiki ettiquette ? Haphar 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at my history, and my userpage, I don't edit on weekends. You'll see that you posted that on late Friday, and then I didn't come back until the 24th and then got sick for a week and didn't get back until the 1st of August (see User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive14) and thought that it would have died down by then. Secondly, you report personal attacks for action, not on pages reserved for discussion of article content unless you want to escalate the personal battles instead of quality content or you want a massive war like what happened after this kind of nonsense at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It was reported to an admin ( you) who for whatever reason did not respond. But all the above is a digression, If you could answer the question asked it would help. Let me repeat- Are these comments on Islam by a user acceptable as per wiki ettiquette ? Haphar 08:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Another question You have posted the following case [16]. There are some accusations made in the text, and though you are doing tasks for a blocked user Neta, should the unrealted to the case accusations not have been weeded out ? Haphar 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I stated it verbatim as it is not my report. Furthermore, my comments to Hari Singh were not to condone personal attacks and civility, but it is an unfortunate fact that administrators are generally not held to account because in the past when this has happened it has often resulted in admins engaging in retaliatory block wars. Apart from 3RR which is cut and dry. Please do not twist my words as you have done on Woohookitty's page to indicate that I condone personal attacks and civility. Check my WP:RFA "voting" record. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think anyone would question you as an admin for raising a checkuser report on your own. If it is not your report Neta can raise it when active again. If you think his request has merit you can raise it yourself without going in for "verbatim". You could have also asked him to reword it as it carries accusations not related to the complaint. In my opinion on an issue where all parties are asked to excercise restrain, to forward a complaint by Neta that makes unrelated accusations against me, (a party to the restrained from responding group) is not expected from an admin. Specially in light of you not taking action on issues reported to you about Neta's behaviour by me in the past. Haphar 13:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to trim out the irrelevancies.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Name

• User: Netaji - I have already brought to your knowledge that the pseudonym "Netaji" and "Subhash Bose" in any combinations refer to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and is a violation of Wikipedia naming policies.Can this editor be asked to change his username TerryJ-Ho 10:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Subhash Chandra Bose died 60 years ago. He won't be able to sue like L.K. Advani would.Bakaman _Bakatalk 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Names of well-known living or recently deceased people (e.g. Chuck Norris, Ken Lay) unless you are that person. If you are, say so on your user page. (See User:Stephencolbert and User:Nskinsella and Notable_Wikipedians)"

Bose died in 47. Not too recent.Bakaman _Bakatalk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember a guy User:Chiang Kai-shek who used the name until he was hauled to the ARBCOM for unrelated matters. And Chiang died in 1975? It's a judgment call, not clearcut - bring it up at WP:ANI. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but nobody knows precisely when Bose died.. It may have been quite recent. Hornplease 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Really how about some proof? I don't really subscribe to the 47-48 thing either, I think he died in a Chinese or Soviet prison in the 50's. Since you are merely speculating, his screenname is here to stay.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

At best the issue of Netaji's death is controversial.No commission of enquiry has yet laid the final verdict on this matter.[17]Hindustan Times Special

The best source still states 1948 therefore it stays. I'm surprised certain users will harp on trivial issues like this instead of contributing to wiki. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I continue to be surprised at how few people on WP can recognise a humorous aside. Hornplease 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi. Are you the same BLnguyen with whom I chatted on irc a few hours ago? If you're not, then plz ignore this message. I'm still very new to wikipedia and am only getting the hang of this editing stuff.

I was reading the article on "Hinduism" (titled Hinduism) and noticed an anonymous user (like I was until now) putting edits that are very biased, pejorative and point-of-view-y. So I "reverted" them (I mean I went to the history page and clicked on the earlier version and saved it instead). Is this ok? I don't want to get into trouble or get anybody else into trouble so am asking you, since you seem like a nice guy (from what I read abt you in this talk page thing). I clicked on his contribs page and noticed a lot of other anti-Hindu edits that he has been making on Nazism articles, saying that Hindus are racist and like Nazis and such. I fixed those too and am watching this contribs page. I will paste it below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=61.3.165.195

I read help pages on wikipedia and saw that I have to warn him with a template so I put subst:test3 in his talk page and warned him. Is this also ok? Thanks. Hkelkar 10:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and he is now blocked for 1 month as everybody thinks it is the banned Anirudh77. In the case of extreme POV-commentary and OR, a user can be blocked, especially here he made the absurd claim that because the Nazis used the swastika etc, the Hinduism is responsible for it (presumably that applies to Buddhism also).Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The unofficial Indian disputes mediator

I am really amazed how all Indian disputed end up at your page. This "Cool as a Cucumber" award is in appreciation of the excellent work you are doing. Tell me when you stand for ArbCom! :)- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, although seriously I probably have serious political obstacles as well. I don't have a factional/cabal powerbase. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Akash. Your first months as an admin have been wonderful - I don't think anybody has done more valuable work in their first 100 days! Rama's arrow 16:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep! You've been a wonderful admin. I dont think any of the Indian admins have been confronted with as many disputes as you have. You certainly deserve this. You certainly are the coolest! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}17:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I think you have to unblock Anwar. Rama's arrow 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it automatic to expire? Is it not working? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The pains you take is appreciable.Dont know if you have visited India but perhaps your introduction to this country has not been so inviting..This is just one part of life..India is full of great surprises TerryJ-Ho

I still intend to go to India someday. It's still on my userpage list for the travel part. I was aware of the large diversity of political, religious and linguistic views in India and regionalism before I got here. It's not like Australia where there are two political parties, one language, more or less one religion,..etc. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as conflicting as it appears on Wikipedia. Most people in India are tolerant of other faiths. Many Hindus and Sikhs go to Gurudwaras and Mandirs respectively. They also are proud of the Taj Mahal. All the Jews and Parsis while escaping persecution came to India because of its tolerance of different cultures. The diversity is in fact one of the most beautiful things about the nation. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not, people get on well, amazingly so - India is probably one of the few countries, if not the only one where people from minority groups are voluntarily allowed anywhere near leadership positions, let alone hold them such as Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and the Muslim president. For many countries things are so politicised I don't think that a minority group would even be allowed to become a captain of a sport team like Mansoor Ali Khan or Mohammad Azharuddin. But WP does provide an irresistably opportunity to try and push POV and soapbox for those who are unfond the wonderful linguistic and religious mosaic of India. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks as well. You've taken on several trying tasks, and are accomplishing them with admirable even-handedness. Hornplease 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America

I've been having trouble communicating with a fellow Wikipedian while working on the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America article, and we've been involved in a very tiny slow motion edit war. I'd like some outside feedback. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the Talk:Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America#Vikramsingh's slew of NPOV edits talk page and article history, and offer any suggestions or advice. Thanks. Anirvan 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for unblock

Hi, Since users User:Syiem and User:RSudarshan were wrongly blocked for allegedly being my "sockpuppets" shouldn't they also be unblocked? Thanks.Netaji 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I already have.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the unblock. This post from today shows that the user hasn't changed or improved at all. Nothing will change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was doing it because your block was going to expire yesterday. The second block was invalid because they weren't socks, so I simply used your timer. If you feel that something is amiss, then feel free to reblock, as I haven't checked his latest edits. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Woohookitty. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

(edit conflict)I've noticed that certain users have really gone wild since Subhash was blocked. User:Ramas arrow and User:Deepujoseph said that the RfC and the Sock acusation's were baseless. Rama's arrow said that I should possibly file an RfC to make these people accountable. What is the proper channel for this?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can go to WP:RFC and instigate a case. Have you tried to resolve the problem beforehand with them one on one? Blnguyen | rant-line 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. Does the Mediation Cabal and The RfC filed against me count?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor really, the MEDCAB is for article disputes, which is not what you're wanting and the RfC doesn't involve these guys. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior created the RfC and harrassed newbie user Hkelkar while Assuming bad faith. Holywarrior and Neta are not good buds either while Ragib told me he has run into Holywarrior in the past.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you then if you want one against Holywarrior.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leh

I think User:Mr Tan and User:Bharatveer have stopped warring, I think I got Bharatveer to accept the fact that the 24 Chrisitan families is a big number for a mountain town in the middle of nowhere. You protected after my edits, which were merely a reorganization of the page and the adding of Buddhist-Christian clashes and their anger at missionaries, none of which are controversial to Bharatveer or Mr Tan. I request you unprotect it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need advice with a possible issue with User:Holywarrior

Hi. I remember you from our chat session and was hoping for some advice reagrding a problem that many of us are having with this user. I have made some well-sourced verifiable edits to the Kancha Ilaiah article and discussed with several users in the talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kancha_Ilaiah ), who agree with me. Holywarrior, on the other hand, keeps deleting them, and has even violated 3RR to that effect in the past. He keeps giving bogus defwarns and threatens to report me and get me blocked. Please see his edit summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&action=history

He has also threatened to report me for 3RR violation (in another user's talk page) even though I have not made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABen_W_Bell&diff=72835608&oldid=72595138

I have defended my case in the above post.

I have noticed this unfortunate trend of users getting other users blocked just by putting complaints without proper investigation even though complaints made against them may be unjustified. I'd like your advice on how I should deal with this matter. Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

the user:hkelkar has history of cheating the system .He had got me blocked for 3RR violation citing diffs of many days. I was soon unblocked after the fraud committed by him was noticed.HW 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the statement above is a violation of WP:NPA.Hkelkar 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not because it is true.HW 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. You only were unblocked because dab saved you. Dab is extremely incivil in discussion and has a hatred of Hindu users. Look at the discussion [18].Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that others have been "gaming the system" is OK, but calling them "fraud" is not.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for clarifying I will take care.HW 08:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kancha Ilaiah

Hi the version you have protected has already been refuted on talk page.If you want to protect, plz protect the unbiased version conforming to WP:BLP.Thanx.HW 10:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No it was not refuted at all :).Hkelkar 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll unprotect it now that you have both cooled off hopefully after both appearing to violate 3RR.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the dispute is far from over, and HW has refuted nothing. If you look at the talk page Talk:Kancha Ilaiah#Moving forward, the mediator and I agree on the issue, but HW continues to intransigently dispute the consensus.I request you to keep the page protected until disputes are resolved. Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)