User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hmm/Sorry 2 Abuse of Power by Admin (Gamaliel) 3 Israeli Apartheid 4 Urgent motion in Hkelkar case 5 Thanks 6 Damn attica 7 Request for explanation 8 New antisemitism 9 Hello I am User:SuperDeng and have been indef blocked by an admin 10 Question 11 Hkelkar, continuance, still editing 12 Arbitration workshop pages 13 BhaiSaab has returned 14 Seabhcan arbitration 15 Harassment from Hal(dane) Fisher 16 Has Arbcom banded some URL from being posted? 17 Arbcom open tasks fixed 18 I don't think you meant that... 19 Nobs01=Nobs02 account 20 ScienceApologist RfAr 21 Question for Fred 22 ScienceApologist cautioned 23 Threats of vandalism to the Langan biography 24 Your Proposal 25 Is this unrelated to the article? 26 Email

[edit] Hmm/Sorry

My bad. Figured with most new proposals the users themselves would add the templates in. (Although, admitedly, I have no clue how the automatic templating systems here work, since even the most nonsensical entries on WP:AFC typically use the proper template)... well, hopefully someone reverted me. I apoligize for my error, usually seeing something repeated 20 times is a bad thing (Again, admitedly, I have no experience on arbitration case pages either). Sorry again. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on enforced Wikibreak

PS: I just undid my changes per your message on my talk page. Thanks for the note. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on enforced Wikibreak 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Power by Admin (Gamaliel)

Good morning. I am writing to express my concern on the abuse of power by the Wikipedia Gamaliel (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This user has in the past few days sent me around 7 threatening and profane messages, and has registered me for around 27 messages of spam e-mail. It was after this that the user stated that he/she did this on purpose.

This concerns me because as this user is an admin, I am concerned that he/she is not only using his/her position to intimidate wikipedians that do not agree with him/her, the user may very well be working to intimidate other users as well. I am requesting that the arbitration committee investigate this, as I feel my experience as a wikipedia editor is being compromised. Thank you. Have a nice day.EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Israeli Apartheid

Can you look at the improper reverts and review the Talk page? Thanks. It appears the allied group that affected HomeontheRange is hurting me. Kindly review the content of the edits that are reverted on sight, without discussion. Thanks.Kiyosaki 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent motion in Hkelkar case

As one of the ArbCom partaking in this case, your input/co-operation into this temporary injunction would be greatly appreciated. I wouldn't have sent you a message, but given the nature of what has occured, and the potential to stall this ArbCom case, everyone involved needs a speedy resolution or else I suspect the case will break down. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar has been unblocked; BhaiSaab admitted to attempting to contact him in real life. There may be other important issues here but I have removed the motion for emergency unblock as moot. Thatcher131 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

thanks for accepting my case in the ArbComm Thanks a lot Arsath 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damn attica

The article in which that picture appears is pretty funny; thanks for the link. I didn't realize you were a reader there, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for explanation

I am seriously rather confused about the arbitration case, could you please comment here.--Konstable II 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New antisemitism

I hope you don't mind me contacting you about this. I remember you commenting before (in a proposed arbitration which was not taken up by arbs except you), that this page had been a forum for POV-pushing for too long. I am also very frustrated with it. I wondered if you would be able to advise me about the workability of a suggestion which I made on the talk page without response. That is, that what is really needed is a page or pages on the history of antisemitism in recent times. Then all the manifestations could be mentioned there, including such issues as Bans on ritual slaughter and the New antisemitism page, if it remained, would just deal with New antisemitism as a theoretical construct used by some writers. I would also be grateful for any suggestions you might have about periodization, i.e. would it be most appropriate to have one page for the 20th century and another for the 21st, or would some other break date be advisable? Thanks in advance. Itsmejudith 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I obviously need to go away and reflect again on how best to move this and related articles towards better quality and consensus. And to read some more sources. Regards. Itsmejudith 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello I am User:SuperDeng and have been indef blocked by an admin

To make a long story short

The admin who has a personal grudge against me, had made up some very nice stories about me and has continuously blocked for me 6 months. And a few months ago one of blocks ended and I made a grand total of 0 edits, but then a new char whos ip was not possbile to check appeared started makeing similar edits to mine so he was accussed of beeing a sockpuppet and I got blocked again. Now this can not be a sock puppet since I Superdeng did not do any edits and even if we were the same person then that dosent matter since superdeng was makeing zero edits the new account was created one week after my block was lifted. Bahh this is not a short story it is long. Anyway all I want is a fair trial on the arb com board where I have a chans of defending myself and not where everyone of the imaginasions of the admin is percieved as fact.

So what ever policy i violated has been served in full after 6 months.

The evidence against you appears quite strong. If you ever edit Wikipedia again, please avoid the mistakes you made this time. Fred Bauder 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but can you remove my perma ban? I have been blocked for 6 months --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.102.38 (talk • contribs).

Indeed, there has been no community consensus to ban this user forever. He has been blocked for six months already, with no particular offense in view. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned one month for sockpuppetry with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up [1] [2]. Ban extended to two months for more sockpuppetry. After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as Lokqs (talk • contribs) (only after the ban) but also as The Green Fish (talk • contribs) (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation. If the block is reviewed at the admin noticeboard, the choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (In other words, if I overturned Woohookitty's indef ban and reinstated the one month ban, could Deng keep still for a month or would a series of one month bans amount to a defacto site ban.)

note SuperDeng (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Sorry about using your talk page, Fred, but it seems most of the interested parties are reading it. I don't have a strong opinion either way but it is telling that his sock puppets are so easily detected. I think the complaint that Woohookitty has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior. Thatcher131 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello, I was about to put in a complaint against SPA Hal(dane) Fisher regarding a personal attack he posted to my talk page here. I notice that a lot is going on and I am wondering where the correct place is to lodge a complaint for this violation. TIA --DrL 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hkelkar, continuance, still editing

A thread at WP:AN has called attention to the fact that despite the request for a continuance, Hkelkar (talk • contribs) continues to edit. Thatcher131 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration workshop pages

Hi, Fred. I appreciate that workshop pages are only for suggestions, and are much less "official" than proposed decision pages. Nevertheless, when a proposal on the workshop page comes from one of the arbitrators, it's obvious that it will seem more official than a proposal from a lowly admin or an even lowlier user! With that in mind, I wonder would you consider reflecting for a bit longer before you make calls to have heavy punitive blocks or desysoppings. I'm just typing this without going over all the evidence, but it seems that in recent months you've called for desysoppings of respected administrators for being argumentative or for one single undoing of another admin's action, temporary bannings of respected administrators for a single undoing of another admin's action, a one-month ban of someone who said something like "make sure you try the puffer fish; it's delicious", and other remedies that seem, to say the least, rather punitive and even frivolous. I'm concerned that the subjects of these suggestions may have the existence of these suggestiongs used against them in the future. For example, your latest suggestion concerning FeloniousMonk could be used by some future troll in a dispute against FM in order to undermine his judgment — "a respected arbitrator proposed that he be desysopped" etc. No offence meant — just something to think about. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Having posted something slightly critical, I'll sweeten it a bit by adding that although I'm not directly affected, I do appreciate the time you took in removing ED links. AnnH ♫ 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab has returned

Fred, In re: Hkelkar, BhaiSaab has returned. [3]. Thatcher131 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You also skipped voting on principle #12. Thatcher131 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will be here until at least the end of this arbitration. I kindly ask that you not delay the proceedings as has been done already. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seabhcan arbitration

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that Seabhcan is away until Monday December 3, and won't be able to offer evidence or respond to the workshop until then. Thatcher131 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment from Hal(dane) Fisher

This speculation from Haldane Fisher is continuing to cross the line. Is there anything we can do to stop this harassment and speculation regarding my identity IRL? This violates several policies including WP:PRIVACY and WP:STALK. --DrL 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

blocked pending final outcome. Thatcher131 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Too slow Fred Bauder 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Thatcher131 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have both Hal(dane) Fisher accounts been blocked then? --DrL 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hal is indef blocked as a sockpuppet account (one per customer, please). Haldane is blocked for 5 days; I expect it will be extended before it expires, but I didn't want to be too precipitous on the spur of the moment. Thatcher131 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Right. Okay, thanks. He has started a wave of this behavior and even other administrators are engaging in this speculation. What is disturbing about this edit is that it comes from an administrator and that it was prompted by anonymous sources apparently trying to use Wikipedia as a tool of attack or revenge. The point about privacy being so fundamental to the rules here is to avoid this kind of intimidation. Do I have the right to redact speculation on this article's talk page that is designed to invade privacy, subject editors to harassment, and encourage future harassment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrL (talk • contribs).

I don't think you interpreted my comment on the Arb page as I meant it. You may want to look at my clarification. JoshuaZ 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has Arbcom banded some URL from being posted?

Hi Fred, you probably don't remember me bu we go back a long time. I was wondering what is up with url concerning wikipedia.[4] I noticed some possible vandalism on a users page and gave a warning to Harison.[5] Some administrator removed some links about wikipedia. Tbeaty indicated that per ARBCom they may be removed. Can you link to this presidence or at lest second what Tbeaty is saying! Thank you. (take note: I am representing cplot as an advocate and I believe he is being unjustly blocked) --CyclePat 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the response on my user page. I'm sorry Fred but I don't understand the relevance of the example you have given. It actually shows user cplot adding information, specifically URL links and his opinion on CIA stuff regarding wikipedia, to is own user talk page. I really don't see what is wrong with that, but, allegedly, according to Tbeatty, this can be removed. However, removing the information from cplot's talk page, as I have pointed out, violated WP:VAND and should be considered vandlism. Hence, I would like to see the Arbcom decission that indicates these urls should be removed. Can you please give me a link to the precedence. We could then fix the WP:VAND page to explain this exception. --CyclePat 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've answered Pat on my Talk. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom open tasks fixed

Please see if there is a way we can signal that there is a motion to vote on. Fred Bauder 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred: fixed it. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration where I explained the change. I modified the {{Evidence}} template so instead of using two or three single quotes ('' and ''') to trigger the injunction label, use i and ii for injunctions and m and mm for proposed and passed motions. I couldn't think of a felicitious abbreviation for "Motion" so I left it spelled out. I don't think its too big on the template, but if you want to use some other text to indicate the motion let me know or change it yourself. (The switch function is kind of tricky, I played around in a sandbox until I got it right). Thatcher131 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think you meant that...

...when you made this edit, you seem to have inadvertently duplicated the content of the page and reposted it below the original content. 68.39.174.238 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs01=Nobs02 account

Hi, I have accepted to advocate User:Nobs01 on his request and know he is acting with your permission through User:Nobs02. My question is how much is he allowed to do with that account, in other words: how much will he be able to participate on the process (using talk pages, commenting and presenting evidence, etc.) or can he only act through me? --Neigel von Teighen 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! --Neigel von Teighen 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist RfAr

Hello, Fred. I just took a look at the "Proposed Decision" page for the ScienceApologist RfAr. Some of the proposals which have been included, and your votes on those proposals, appear to me to be totally disconnected from the evidence thus far presented (this may be a function of my own "POV", but forgive me for expressing my doubts). In particular, it appears to me that ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk have been tacitly exempted from WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LIVING, and that further participation here may be a total waste of my time. Therefore, I have a question: can the Langan bio be permanently locked? I already have reason to believe that Langan has suffered real-life damage from the misrepresentations included there by ScienceApologist and the members of WikiProject Intelligent Design, and I do not believe that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has any right to subject him to such negative real-world consequences. (An additional question, if I may. Do those whom you vote to censure have any right of response on the Proposed Decision page?) Thanks, Asmodeus 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(Please see my response to your response(s) here. Asmodeus 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

(Please see my last response here regarding threats to add litigious misinformation to the Langan bio by parties involved in the ScienceApologist RfAr. Asmodeus 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

Asmodeus, please see WP:LEGAL. Legal threats are frowned upon and can get you blocked. JoshuaZ 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No legal threat was made or implied. I was talking about the express intention of certain parties to add material regarding (potentially ongoing) litigation to a biography article in which it plainly does not belong, and the need to keep the article locked against those making the threats. After all, Wikipedia does not involve itself in irrelevant legal disputes. Asmodeus 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you mean to say "litigious misinformation." Do you mean "information about legal disputes" or "inaccurate information about legal disputes"? JoshuaZ 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes I do indeed, JoshuaZ! Thank you for the attempt at clarification, and have a nice day. Asmodeus 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Fred

I am wondering why you proposed that I edit in a disruptive way. I stick to verifiable facts and encourage others not to post opinion and conjecture or misrepresent sources. I would appreciate it if you would examine my actual edits and tell me which ones you feel are disruptive and why. I just don't think you will find any truly improper edits. If there is something specific in my editing behavior that you can point out to me then I can consider your feedback. Otherwise it is too vague to be helpful. --DrL 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fred, I think "agressive" is a bit strong. I was certainly no more aggressive than SA or FM. I was blocked after not making an edit for 10 hours - after SA and others made several edits (so much for WP:OWN). All I did was put back reliable sources that had been dropped out without explanation. When an article is being attacked to skew the POV, it is important that at least one editor try to maintain balance. I was assertively editing to maintain balance, 'not' aggresively editing to push POV. Why don't you really examine my edits and see. You were a lawyer and should have some ability to neutrally examine evidence. I would really like your objective opinion. --DrL 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist cautioned

I can find nothing on what it means to be "cautioned" in an Arbitration case,[6] which makes it difficult to know how to identify possible infractions, and what action may or may not be taken. Here are a couple of post-arbitration edits from ScienceApologist I think are not in the spirit of the final decision. Note that I declare an interest, having been involved in the same arbitration case.

• "Plasma cosmology advocates themselves are pretty ignorant of the current state of the field,"[7]. Unsubstantiated, unverifiable opinion. There may well be peer reviewed criticisms, and he may well consider inaccuracies or omission in various papers. But how can he possible guess what plasma cosmologists know, or don't know. This over-generalization is uncivil towards Plasma cosmology advocates such as editors like myself, and deprecating towards non-editors as described in WP:LIVING.
• Plasma cosmology is a "bunch of amateurish drivel"[8]. As largely peer-reviewed material from professional scientists with impeccable credentials, this does seem somewhat "deprecating" (cf. WP:LIVING). ScienceApologist is entitled to his own personal viewpoint, but this is not constructive.

When I described the Big Bang as dogmatic, I presume I was being criticized, even though it a verifiable viewpoint,[9] [10] [11], and I was not shown to have made any inappropriate edits. Yet I am also concerned that ScienceApologist's criticisms are not even supported by WP:V and WP:RS, and do seem to affect his editing decisions.[12] --Iantresman 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm afraid he's just making fair comment. Straight talk about how he sees the situation. Fred Bauder 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fair comments are surely based on verifiable information from reliable sources. If I was to comment that the advocates of the Arbitration process were "pretty ignorant", and the decision a "bunch of amateurish drivel", you would rightly have cause for rebuke, and it certainly wouldn't be constructive? --Iantresman 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok with me. Strong criticism is appreciated. We did the best we could, but I admit the result is not to my liking. Fred Bauder 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats of vandalism to the Langan biography

Hello again, Fred. Above, I reported on vandalism threats made to the Langan bio by Jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, Guy/JzG, JoshuaZ, and Arthur Rubin. Several of these people have already edited the article in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, so it can be reasonably inferred that their threats are real. Unfortunately, you recently moved to tie the hands of the one and only person who was protecting the article from this kind of destructive POV-driven attack (DrL), thus helping to create a dangerously skewed situation that can only encourage the attackers. Unless you plan to ban all of these people from editing the article, along with others who have repeatedly attacked it in the past, it is virtually certain that the article will be systematically abused. I hope you'll pardon my frankness, but I find this situation unacceptable. Accordingly, if and when you manage to take a look at these threats, I'd greatly appreciate some form of acknowledgement. Thanks, Asmodeus 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, a roll call of Wikipedia's most notorious vandals and POV pushers, from a famously neutral user :-) Guy (Help!) 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article should conform to WP:BIO. Fred Bauder 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Proposal

Hi, Fred. I am having trouble understanding this. You proposed to ban an editor (Asmodeus) from editing an article that he has not edited since July. He has only edited it a couple of times and never violated policy. Can you elaborate on the reason for your ban or perhaps review this user's contributions to the article in question and reconsider the proposed ban and its wording? --DrL 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this unrelated to the article?

You have voted to support that my comments on the Tipu Sultan talk page are unrelated to the topic are trolls.I would like you to read my edit again and see that it was written in the context of the article itself and on the negative portrayal of Tipu Sultan by Hindutva supporters scholars recently..The edit reads as "Another important anecdote narrated in the book, not as a main text, exposes the bias of the communal historians. This is regarding author's encounter with Prof. Hariprasad of Calcutta University, about the veracity of his claims that 3,000 Brahmins committed suicide protesting Tipu Sultan's order to convert to Islam. When Dr. Pandey enquires him about the source of that information, Prof. Prasad cites Mysore Gazetteer as the source. But the author relentlessly pursues the matter with Prof. Shreekantayya of Mysore University about the said source and seeks further information about Tipu's religious intolerance. But Prof. Shreekantayya categorically rejects any such documentation in any Gazetteer and provides him with lots of original sources describing Tipu as a great Dharma Sahishnu (religious tolerant). When Dr. Pandey takes up the case with Prof. Prasad citing the sources provided by Prof. Shreekantayya, Prof. Prasad honestly admits that he is unaware of the sources. "..HKelkar removed my edit from the talk page in contravention of the WP policies. MerryJ-Ho 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all my sources in that article are from scholarly works, academic journals, and other similar material, not "Hindutva texts". Since TerryJ-Ho's merrily casting aspersions, let me point out the real motivations behind trying to bash Hindus and Indians in general on wikipedia:

1. School Books That Teach Children To Hate- in Pakistan:

Muslims alone have the right to rule the world and are allowed to kill infidels that stand in the way of Islam. This is the message being taught to schoolchildren through textbooks used in the network of institutions run by Jamaat ud-Daawa, according to a research report on Hate Speech complied by the Liberal Forum Pakistan. "Infidels are cowards by nature," claims the Urdu textbook used in the second grade (for seven-year-olds). "When a holy warrior attacks them, they scream with terror and fear." Mujahideen are glorified as the alpha male on a mission from God. They are the superheroes that kill Hindus, fashion all sorts of gadgets from found material, and make the infidel world cower in fear.

1. Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:

An alumnus of the University of Texas at Austin, Rosser is a South Asia expert with special interest in the educational structure in India and its tangential impact on the curriculum in the U.S. To legitimise Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, "historians had to nurture the image of the Muslims as a monolithic entity, acting in unison and committed specifically to Islamic values and norms", she says. "In the past few decades," she says, "social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours.

1. The subtle subversion in Pakistan:

scholars A M Nayyar and Ahmed Salim laboriously went through Pakistani textbooks in Social Studies, English, Urdu and Civic Studies prescribed for children studying from class I to XII and have come the conclusion 'that for over two decades the curricula and the officially mandated textbooks in these subjects have contained material that is directly contrary to the goals and values of a progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan'.According to Nayyar and Salim the Pakistani textbooks narrated history 'with distortions and omissions'. They found:

Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation.

Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jihad and Shahadat.

Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities and other nations.

A glorification of war and the use of force and

Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical self-awareness among students.

Now, as for Tipu Sultan, my references cited therein are:

1. Sharma, H.D (January 16, 1991). The Real Tipu (in English). Rishi Publications, Varanasi.Sharma is an established and accredited scholar at BHU University in India, one of the top ten schools in the country
2. Lewis Rice Mysore and Coorg (a Gazetteer) Vol I Bangalore 1878
3. Meersman, Achilles [1972]. Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833 p238. Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos.
4. George M. Moraes "Muslim Rules of Mysore and their Christian subjects" in Irfan Habib (Ed.) Confronting Colonialism. Resistance and modernisation under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan Indian History Congress (Delhi: Tulika) 1999 p135
5. Kareem, C.K [1973] (1973). Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan P187. Kerala History Association : distributors, Paico Pub. House, 322. (This guy Kareem is a Muslim btw)
6. Lee-Warner, William [1894]. “3”, The Protected Princes of India. Macmillan and Co..
7. Rao, Hayavadana C.. History of Mysore 1399-1799: Incorporating the latest Epigraphical, Literary and Historical Researches Vol. 3 pgs 1047-53. Bangalore Government Press.Historian Hayavadana C. Rao has written the most encyclopedic work on Mysore history to date.

So, Kareem, Sharma and Rao are all "Hindutvaadis" according to TerryJ-Ho. This should demonstrate the paranoid mentality of madrassa-brainwashed fanatics quite adequately I think.

TerryJ-Ho's attempts to assign motives to my well-sourced and scholarly edits should adequately expose his trollish behavious in this context. Hkelkar 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you an email, perhaps you missed it? Or your email is not working? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, but did not want to engage in an extended discussion about a simple observation. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an extended discussion, I asked three simple questions. Are you saying you'd prefer not to answer them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)