User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome, Fowler&fowler!

Welcome to our community!
Welcome to our community!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, riana_dzasta 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dont you think your being way to picky and strange by saying if persisted could be vandalism? I mean yes I understand what your saying...But geez how was I supposed to know other people have covered it? Do I have to read everything before I make a comment?....There were others who talked about calling India the most populous so I read that part. But I dont remember seeing anyone say Russia & China were not Democratic (although again I dont think I read everything)

I can't believe I'm saying this (since a part of me sympathizes with your impatience), but you are supposed to read everything; otherwise, you end up repeating what others have already said, which in turn makes it harder for others to read everything, and so forth. BTW, most of that discussion was about whether China was undemocratic or not; and as you will see there, I was really arguing what you are saying. My reference to vandalism was not about being repetitive, but about inserting comments in the middle of a discussion. That is definitely very confusing and frustrating for other readers. Anyway, thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

I think it's ok to remove military info from both.However, I request that you put both articles in your watchlist and monitor them accordingly.Hkelkar 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks. Fowler&fowler 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Good man!Hkelkar 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

India and Sati

Please read the article on Sati carefully.While the British enacted the first law against it, the ;aw was only restricted to Bengal presidency and hardly counts. It was only due to the lobbying of the Brahmo Samaj that Sati was outlawed all over British India (minus the princely states) and only thanks to their grassroots activity that the practice was phased out.21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Bengal Presidency hardly counts! The Bengal Presidency was all of North and Eastern India in those days (which is where most of the Suttee problem was); the other two presidencies Bombay and Calcutta were small by comparison (and had very little Suttee practice). See the map of the Bengal Presidency. You'll need a credible citation to claim that it was only through the efforts of RRR or Brahmo Samaj that the Suttee ban was passed. Fowler&fowler 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have provided the refs below. It was only due to the efforts of RRR that Sati was banned throughout British India. The Bengal Presidency ban was a joke and was almost never put into action. Only RRR's lobbying efforts enforced the ban all over the colony and his grassroots campaigning that educated people enough not to break that law.Hkelkar 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sati

Please read http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/rajarammohunroy.html and:

History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

“ Raja Ram Mohan Roy counterpetitioned that Sati was inhuman and unjust. It was because of his cooperation that in 1829 Lord William Bentick could declare Sati against the Law [all over British India] ”

Hkelkar 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.Hkelkar 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the other references, but I did read your URL article. It doesn't make the case that Roy was instrumental, but rather that he was supportive. It attests to my use of "with the support of":

In 1829 Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General of India, after consulting with Roy, declared sati illegal. Roy assured him that this would not violate religious liberty because it was, in his estimation, an optional rite and not a true part of Hindu religion. Roy supported the government decision, briefed Bentinck on how to respond to pro-sati petitions, and wrote a tract, Abstract of the Arguments regarding the Burning of Widows Considered as a Religious Rite, 1830. In this he called sati "cruel murder, under the cloak of religion." His persuasive influence made the British ruling seem less coercive.(my bold face)

Bentick was influenced primarily by Bentham and Mill who were championing women's causes long before RRR appeared on the scene. Fowler&fowler 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The two refs that I have provided do not support the claim that RRR's campaign was substratum to British mandate but the other way around. to even suggest that Britishers in the 19th century gave a damn about the plight of Indian women is contrary to reality as they regarded all Indians as essentially subhuman.Hkelkar 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't waste my time. Bring up whatever you have to on the India talk page. Fowler&fowler 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise effort

I appreciate your efforts to compromise on India regarding the Sati issue. Regarding your interesting post to Dbachmann [1]. If you believe that Indian patriotism poses some sort of systemic problem, I suggest you look at this [2] and statements made by Chinese nationalists on Talk:Sino-Indian_War. You appear to have done some research on India related matters and do acknowledge that we are the only true and stable democracy in the region, a region with other countries run by whack-job Islamic Fundamentalists, military dictators and oppressive communist regimes. In such an atmosphere of hostility from countries who hate us for our freedom and democracy which we Indians have embraced from the western culture only and adapted to our own, I posit that Indian Nationalism is, at the very least, inherently pro-west and not anti-west (even the most hardline Hindu Nationalists praise democratic ideas and participate in the democratic process, whereas the Deobandis and Wahabis want to return to a medeival Khilafat of authoritarian society). In contrast Pakistani and Chinese Nationalism are rabidly anti-democracy and anti-west, thus posing a far greater danger to the civilized world than Indian nationalism. Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Just offerring you some food for thought, that's all.Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the links above. Will mull over the issues you raise. Fowler&fowler 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Question about signature

This should help. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that has been answered. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks both! I'm still working on it! Fowler&fowler 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Copy and paste the following code. It should work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]]
The rendered output would be: Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Note that the "Talk" isn't highlighted here as this is your talk page. It will work correctly anywhere. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: Copy from edit box, not from the talk page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yippee!! It worked. Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

= Thanks ...

for spacing care of the spacing, even though it's a minor point. Keep working on the lead — maybe Nichalp will grow to like the new version better. Take care. Saravask 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Fowler&fowler 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

I must say, the article on India looks so much better now. Keep up the good work! --Incman|वार्ता 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fowler&fowler 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rv of the ip's edits on India

See the talk on the India page. Do not revert responsible edits simply because you are ignorant or it goes against your POV. Discuss on the talk page before reverting something that you dont understand. Sarvagnya 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you should stop acting like you own the India article. I dont have to establish that Ugadi and Sankranti are as 'notable' or widely celebrated as Pongal or Holi. This is common knowledge. It is you who need to get your facts right and clarify it on whatever talk page you want with whosoever you wish. Holi is not even a public holiday in many parts of the country. Dasara is the biggest festival of Karnataka, Bengal and Gujarat. It is the official state festival of Karnataka. It is also celebrated in every other part of the country. Ugadi and Sankranti are the new year and harvest festivals of almost half the country. Pongal is limited to the state of Tamil Nadu and only to the state of Tamil Nadu. Ganesh Chaturthi is arguably the most widely celebrated festival of India and it doesnt even find a place in your scheme of things! You seem to know squat about Indian festivals. So go get your facts right before you start owning articles and pushing POV. Sarvagnya 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Hi. Yes, Nichalp said we need more info on plants/animals. This probably means we should have a flora/fauna section modelled on Australia#Flora and fauna, Kerala#Flora and fauna, and West Bengal#Flora and fauna. Since I wrote Kerala#Flora and fauna, I have some experience regarding how it should be written — it's just a matter of reading, reading, and more reading. I've made a start at User:Saravask/Flora and fauna yesterday, and am doing some online reading now. I'm also going to the library today to get books on it. You're certainly welcome to add info to it, edit it, or change the pic/caption. We should probably have a comprehensive, well-written two paragraphs before we add it to India, though. Thanks.

Regarding the new users at India (for example, this one), I've had the same issues with them at Talk:Rabindranath Tagore. They tend to come and perform "drive-by" reverts, as was done to you yesterday. The good thing is that they tend to lose interest quickly and move on. Saravask 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Your list definitely beats mine — hands down. I was only able to find one book (Land of the Tiger: A Natural History of the Indian Subcontinent) by V. Thapar at the library. I'm going to join you in writing the new section tomorrow. Meanwhile, feel free to edit or delete anything I do at the subpage — we need to make this read better than the one at Australia. Good luck. Saravask 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanksgiving? No problem; me too. I'm going to post what I have tomorrow, though. It's alright if you wait until then to critique and edit it. Thanks. Saravask 07:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Fowler, thanks for the compliments and happy Thanksgiving to you too. Saravask 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm glad to see you working on the new section; many of the changes were good. However, I have to accept the view Nichalp took towards the lead — that the lists in "Flora and fauna" are getting overly detailed and "listy". I really believe that the lists shouldn't contain any more items than those at Australia#Flora and fauna. This means focusing on the eight or nine animals and perhaps three plant species that are most interesting and unique to India. For example, study the following:

Most Australian woody plant species are evergreen and many are adapted to fire and drought, including many eucalyptus and acacias. Australia has a rich variety of endemic legume species that thrive in nutrient-poor soils because of their symbiosis with Rhizobia bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi. Well-known Australian fauna include monotremes (the platypus and echidna); a host of marsupials, including the kangaroo, koala, wombat; and birds such as the emu, and kookaburra. The dingo was introduced by Austronesian people that traded with Indigenous Australians around 4000 BCE. Many plant and animal species became extinct soon after human settlement, including the Australian megafauna; others have become extinct since European settlement, among them the Thylacine.

Note how they don't present just large lists containing dozens of organisms (e.g., Australia has mammals like the dingo, kangaroo, koala, wombat, echidna, emu, kookaburra, ... ") Instead, they choose to select and highlight a handful of the most interesting organisms in the form of stories and vignettes (e.g., "The dingo was introduced by Austronesian people that traded with Indigenous Australians around 4000 BCE"). They use mostly stories, not lists. I was going to write similar vignettes, but I can't do that when so many organisms are listed. Also, I don't want Sarvagnya & Co. accusing us of hypocrisy (because we don't want the lists in the culture section growing long and crufty). I hope you understand what I mean. :)

Another thing I need help with is finding a reliable figure for the rate of endemism among Indian fauna. Thanks. Saravask 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were intending to prune. But I prefer we the pruning/rewriting at the India page, not the sandbox. This is because there may be people watching the page may be able to offer helpful input, refs, or facts that we can use. They can also point out mistakes. I noticed this when writing Kerala, for example. Let me know what you think. Saravask 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I insist: you go first. :) For now I'm out of ideas; I'd prefer to see how someone with more of Tony1's "strategic distance" can do the job. Also, I didn't do such a great job with vignettes myself at Kerala (since there was little information on wildlife other than lists, I had to make it "listy" as a last resort). Or you could also ask Tony1 or Nichalp. I can give feedback, though. Cheers. Saravask 05:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking much better. I'll be going through it shortly. Saravask 19:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) --209.137.134.16 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: saffron

Yes. Hi, thanks for your copyediting; it looks good now. You asked about the flag; I'd tend to agree with your comments, but that is not enough. It also has to get past the WP:NOR factor (e.g., do any notable references agree with you). Even if you found some, there is still the issue of the many nationalistic Indian editors. They will see your proposed change from "saffron" as some sort of "slight" against India itself and revert-war with you. You probably saw this in the recent disputes over "neighbors" ad nauseum at India. Sympathies. Saravask 21:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

India

I prefer we remove the specifics on the Taj and Ajanta from the lead. This sentence can also be removed. A declared nuclear deterrent state, with an active space program, India is considered an emerging superpower . Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

BNHS

Hi ! How about just initials rather than initialism ? Shyamal 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

India

Please do not change other's edits and do not change the formation info. Also please refrain from putting eurocentric views in the India page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). 04:13, 6 December 2006

Advice/Warning against Eurocentrism

I strongly advice you against supporting/searching only for Eurocentric articles/references to give a negative image to the India page pertaining to the change of the highly derogatory sentence "Colonised by...". If its not possible for you to search for Asiatic/Indic viewpoints/articles/references, then please refrain from arguing about Indic views and let others present it in a more positive way. Himalayanashoka 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversion from main point of Eurocentrism

....So you see, in the space of a few sentences, there are already so many mistakes that it is difficult to understand your intent. Again, I hope you don't take it the wrong way, but what you have to say would be taken a lot more seriously if you wrote it grammatically. And, I don't mean to sound condescending or paternalistic, but one way to improve your writing would be to work though a standard English writing book, for example, The Bedford Handbook or The New Oxford Book of Writing, which are both great books.

Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Divert do not Eurocentrism from. Not do type many so paragraphs tediously keyboard in your from. Indocentric it search do put and in. Phew! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). at 16:28, 8 December 2006
Your wiki behaviour is indeed very suspicious and has to be observed very closely. And will be dealt firmly at an appropriate time. Your third-class Eurocentric views will be crushed mercilessly and brutally.

Himalayanashoka 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Himalayanashoka, Your language is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Besides, how do you propose to crush someone's views "mercilessly and brutally?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work

Thanks for the excellent start to and work on Prater and Millard. Have been waiting for this a long while. Cheers. Shyamal 05:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it looks like you have good access to JBNHS volumes, you might like to look at Charles McCann too. Shyamal 06:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:New users

I have blocked both and reported HA to WP:ANI. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Category:Biota of Pakistan

Your recent edit to Category:Biota of Pakistan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You made a mistake. I was reverting a copyvio. I have replied on the Bot owner's page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian rock cut

I have removed unsatisfactory references and labeled the article unsourced. Hope that is satisfactory. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor I am working with on the Hoysala Empire article probably knows of some. We are bringing it up to Featured Article status so we are in a time crunch right now but I will ask him later. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here: History of Architecture Site Architectural Styles New York Times article 'Rock-cut temple of the many faced God', August 19, 1984 St. Olaf College Art Course Handouts --Nemonoman 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have improved the reference notes (marginally) on the Indian rock cut architecture article. I'm a professional psychologist not an architect, so whatever I add is not going to be at an archictural professional's level. However, it is a valid area, at least for Indian architecture. (You seem to doubt that.) But no one at an expert level seems interested in this area. So, look at it and if you have and suggestionss/resourcess I would appreicat your help. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion in India

Dear Fowler&Fowler,

Compared to Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism seems too large. Compare them to Jews in India article and Buddhism in India respectively. Condense them too. Also why you delete the sentence about Ayyavazhi growth? It was not POV but was from LMS reports. Thanks. - Paul 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. - Paul 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

from Nadirali

Thankyou for your message. I will definately take time to visit the page try and keep out any POV I spot,but I don't think I can do it tonight. Right now I have up to 3 messages to deal with. Tommorrow for sure.

Oh by the way I did get a chance to read your post.I don't really think we disagree at all in regards to Urdu. You are abosolutely right about Hindi being understandable to Urdu speakers.I just contest many people's claim that urdu and Hindi are "the same".

But thankyou for informing me on this.I will definately take the time to pursue this.

All the best.Nadirali 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&folwer,I looked at some of the articles.In order to avoid an edit war,i think you should borrow some of the tag templates on my talkpage for POV articles and inaccurate articles .Meanwhile I'll continue to look at the articles every now and then to see what improvements i can make to keep the POVs out.All the best.Nadirali 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi I visted the IVC article.It is a very sensitive dispute between Indians and Pakistani.For now I think the article is on it's most neutral.Thanks for pointing out the users.However I must be careful not to get into furthur conflict with sensitive or extremist users. The India article is currently protected against editing.Once it's free,you should borrow the template codes from my talk page to place marks on the article for any inaccuracy or POV.Regards.Nadirali 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem always happy to helpout.Nadirali 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Check out

Yeah, I noticed that :), and decided not to dignify it with a reply, or a further revert which would only be reverted, instead choosing to let admins know it might qualify for page protection.

FYI, I have little specialist info about India, and have no strong opinion, except that there's a clear difference between pov and npov ways of expression even to a layman. Balsa10 14:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Ashoka

Report all socks to have them permbanned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Raj's citation

Hi Fowler&Fowler, thanks for letting me know about your response to Paul Raj and the Ayyavazhi debate. Could you please tell me exactly in which Talk page I can find your response? Sarayuparin 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments. Very well put. So, now that thousands of words have been spilt, are we going to remove from the India article the one word (Ayyavazhi) that caused this debate? Sarayuparin 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fowler&Fowler, I didn't reply to you later, so now it is :) Thanks for informing me about your reply. It was thoughtful and I hope to see it making its way into the article. Do you have any idea when the article will be unblocked?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on you by User:Szhaider

Are such comments [3] made against you in edit summaries allowed? I think this is a PA against you. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop typing Schzaider?

Please stop spelling my nickname as Schzaider. Szhaider 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tere Bin

Hello Fowler&fowler! I hope you are doing well. I am messaging you for your assistance on the Tere Bin article. Could you please read the talk page and comment. In the past, you have been very lucid when explaining your views (i.e. Chaand Raat, Pajamas, Purdah, etc.). I have already reverted twice and have provided two explanations there. Thanks in advance. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed response. I just now noticed that you sent me a message. Thanks for reverting to my version. Despite the explanations we provided, anon still keeps reverting. You can type in Devanagari in Unicode here and use copy & paste. You could also download Bahara which also includes a transliteration device. I believe Basawala added the current spelling, which I will look at shortly. Thanks once again for your helpful comments and actions. I really appreciate it. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you finding the Hindi website and/or the Bahara software to be helpful? With regards, AnupamTalk 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

re:Blocks

Yes, I think the blocks were a little too harsh and a 48 hour block should have sufficed. Going through the block logs of Szhaider, Nadirali, and Unrea4L, it is interesting that all of them have a history of being blocked. So, I wouldn't recommend a 24 hr ban, but a slightly higher 48-72. Ideally, as a party involved, RA should have raised the issue on WP:ANI. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, I agree with Nichalp (as usual). I see that two others have already commented on RA's page, so that should do. Thanks. Saravask 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

Fowler&foler,thankyou very much for your support.

The accusations Rama's arrow made against me are not true at all.I can provide evidence of his disruptive edit wars with Szhaider and his prvokitive statements that baited Szhaider into making his personal attacks.

If only I was given a chance to provide this evidence,which includes name calling,racist remarks,anti-Pakistan sentiments and all that.

If you look at the history of the articles(ie Iqbal),Ramma's arrow and Anapum have been tag-team edit warring against Szhaider.

Again I thankyou for the help and support you have given.

And listen don't feel insulted by what Szhaider said to you.He really didn't mean it.Like me,he is just so frustrated with these POV pushers.

I even mistook you for someone else,but that person wasn't you.I think I made that mistake was because these POV pushers were posting on your talkpage.

All the best and thanks alot for your help.

User:Nadirali

Re:blocks

Hi Fowler - lemme begin by clarifying that I have absolutely no problem with criticism. I knew the blocks would concern others, so I am prepared to discuss at length and accept criticism.

(1) Szhaider has been guilty of violating WP:NPA by attacking Indian and Hindu editors, presenting them as a perpetual cabal. Szhaider describes himself as a "Pakistani nationalist" and has made some comments to other users in which he demeans Hindi and Indian history. Nadirali - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] - and Unre4L - [12], [13], [14], [15] - are guilty of making similar accusations, especially through repeated subtle insinuations on article and user talkpages. The problem demanded blocking because of the wide-range of articles in which they have repeatedly pushed their POV - Panini, History of Pakistan, Pakistani nationalism, History of India, Iqbal, Jinnah, Abrar-ul-Haq, Doosra. These editors have repeatedly insisted and insinuated that Indian editors have no "right" to edit Pakistani subject articles and should seek the approval of Pakistani editors before inserting any information - [16], .

(2) I am an Indian and Hindu, no doubt. However, I have always worked for Wikipedia, and I don't see any reason for me not to lay down the law on these editors just because I am a part of a demographic with which they have a conflict of interest. If such a norm is to be observed, a vast majority of Christian heritage administrators cannot then interfere in disputes involving them, can they? I was involved personally with Szhaider on a dispute on Iqbal, but I blocked him only after he violated WP:3RR, which is an explicit and unsubjective rule - additionally, there were plenty of violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, which to me justified violating the norm that one does not block based on 3RR an editor with whom he/she was involved.

(3) These editors qualify for blocking under the rules for a disruptive influence on articles and other editors - A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

Why is their behavior "disruption?" Apart from expressly violating WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, it is because of their repeated accusations against Indian and Hindu editors, attacks on the Indian point of view and insinuations that there is something intrinsically wrong with it and the editing of Indian editors. I see absolutely no effort in way of respecting other people's arguments, providing various sources and proper debating, or seeking mediation - the editors in question keep repeating their POV again, again, again and again - [17], [18] - while accusing others of not respecting their POV.

Does one expect that Indian editors will put up with this forever and not feel a need to retaliate? Will this not start a massive range-war over South Asian articles that will bring Wikipedia into disrepute? I just don't want this to happen - as far as warning Indian/Hindu editors in question, I have already warned user:AMbroodEY and user:Bakasuprman and repeatedly urged them to be civil and work through Wikipedia policies.

I have been accused by all the 3 editors in question of being pro-Hindu, pro-Indian. Such type of flak almost every admin has to put up with, so I am not too concerned. But I would object if someone argues that I should not have acted just because I fit the demographic these editors have a problem with. I will have no objection whatsoever if Indian/Hindu editors are blocked if their conduct is disruptive.

(4) As for prior warnings and attempts to resolve disputes, I have repeatedly drawn attention to Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion - where a group of South Asian editors addressed the very issue these editors were waging a POV-pushing war on. Agreed that there is no formality about this discussion's outcome, but where is the kind of effort on part of the editors in question to resolve this issue in the same spirit and non-disruptive fashion that the dispute resolution process demands?

(5) Nichalp observes that I should have reported on WP:ANI, which is correct - I admit my mistake there.

(6) To add, I decided on a 1-week duration because there is a need in cases of chronic disruptive behaviors to have a suitably long period of block, which will allow a proper period of non-editing and permit the editor to discuss and reflect. I feel that WP:POINT/WP:NPA/WP:NPOV violations are serious indeed, but a block more than 1 week would not have been justified.

I am completely willing to continue this debate to help resolve this issue. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I have no objection if any admin decides to lift the blocks. In the past, I have always asserted that all matters are best resolved without blocking. If there is such a possibility, I would never stand in the way. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now,Now,Now just a minute!What's this tag-team edit war against Szhaider you,Bakman and anapum pulled off [here] if it's not disruption? Are remarks like [these] from Bakaman not racist? Just look at what Bakaman and deeprivia plan on writing [here]. And look at comments like this [this].Comparing us to the Nazis.Are you sure we're not dealing with racists? Szhaider gets harrassed by Bakman and all you give him is [this] while Szhaider gets [this].Same thing with Unre4L who gets harrassed by dabrood and all dabrood gets is [this] wheras Unre4L gets [this]. The only guilty people are you RA and your fellow racists Bakaman,Dabrood and all. Corrupt admins like you have given wikipedia a bad name all over the internet,which I will also prove on WP:ANI. Sure you can find Indian POV pusher warriors everywhere.Just look at the history of the articles and you'll see tag-team edit wars everywhere.You can find racist articles and comments against Pakistani users everywhere.And because they have Indian admins on like you on their side,they always get away with it.I just provided a few links as mere examples of hundreds more. You hear that Fowler&Fowler?He wants to retaliate for something he and his pals started. Wikipedia is not my life but I will make sure justice is found this time. user:nadirali

Your message

Thank you for your message. How can I help you? — Sebastian 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 03:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)