User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 Anton Balasingham 2 Parpanar 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown people 4 WP:AGF 5 Sabha 6 WP:AN3 7 Help needed 8 Caveats 9 ANI 10 your reverts 11 purpose of revert 12 Why Revert 13 Unblock 14 Auto blocked 15 History 16 Ashvamedha 16.1 Sources 17 Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam 18 Technical help 19 Comment 20 Removal of Sourced Material 21 Personal Attacks 22 Removing Warnings from Talk Page 23 Something Quite Interesting 24 Further Inappropriate Removal of Warnings 25 Pakistani Child Abuse 26 Kisaeng 27 adding anti-Pakistan bias 28 Re:ip attacker 29 personal note 30 Unblock 31 Refactored 32 block assessment 33 Vandalism of my user page 34 I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?" 35 karl pilkington 36 Emerging superpower 37 Please don't sockpuppet 38 Unblock 39 Indef-blocked 40 Please unblock/review block 41 AfD nomination of Anant Priolkar 42 Rajkumar Kanagasingam 43 AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam 44 Non-free use disputed for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg 45 Non-free use disputed for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg 46 Zakir Naik/New Version 47 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Betazed.jpg) 48 AfD nomination of Indophobia

[edit] Anton Balasingham

Hi,

The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Hi,

Thanks for your attention, but I think we should go for a third party mediation with neutral editors as you mentioned. Otherwise it is going to be always a problem. I have already requested Seraphimblade and if you both discuss together, do something for this. Thanks for your advice to me.Rajsingam 11:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parpanar

Please do not remove the tags .There is a content dispute.We need references.Thank you. 125.22.132.241 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown people

Hello. I'd like to hear your comments on the current version of this article. It has been completely rewritten since its submission for deletion discussion and answers some of the concerns you raised in the nomination (namely, it is now well-referenced, reliably sourced, and academic in its purview). Because you are the nominator, I was hoping to hear any comments you might have on the current article since its recent rewrite. Feel free to add them to the bottom of the AfD discussion. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

From WP:Assume Good Faith : " However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." From all your edits in so many articles, and all the people who have a problem with your partisanship issues, you're clearly an exception. MinaretDk 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabha

I'm getting fed up with this silliness. Shall I show you exactly how the website author distorts Muller, or shall you actually read it for yourself - not just the passages he hightlights and the titles he gives, but the whole pages that are there? The whole thing is trying to prove that Muller was motivated by literal belief in the Bible, when he actually clearly says the opposite. Here are just two examples; the author has the following headings to passages he has scanned from Muller's book The Science of Language, Vol. 2:

"4000 years ago is very early period in history of the world!"

"I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens"

"Best method is to look for Jewish tradition

"Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition (contd.)

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (or Sanskrit is dimmed version of Jewish tradition)"

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (contd.)"

The last two are rather bizarre, since obviously MM does believe that Sanskrit and Greek have a common origin! This has nothing to do with dimmed memmories of "Jewish tradition".

Let's look at the section entitled "I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens". In fact this is a chapter called "Biblical interpretation". There is no "I belong to..." in Muller's text. This is a chapter in which Muller is summarising the views of Biblical literalists who "imagined they could recognise in Saturn the features of Noah and in his three sons, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, the three sons of Noah, Ham, Japhet and Shem". The author highlights in yellow the statement about the sons, while cutting off the word "imagined" and trying to suppress the obviously satirical tone of Muller's words - which form part of an unambiguous rejection of such methods. The section entitled "Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!" is even more duplicitous. Here we have a highlighted passage in which Muller appears to say "it is impossible to doubt that here [the Greek myth of Hesperides] we have a tradition of the garden of Eden"[1]. However, the author accidentally includes evidence of his own duplicity, by elsewhere including a scan of the previous pages [2] [3] which make it clear that the words are quoted from one F.A.Paley, specifically for the purpose of summarising the mistaken approach of "Biblical interpretation". I could go on...and on. Paul B 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On Muller, I suggest that you read Nirad C. Chaudhuri's biography, or his own works. Muller was essentially a liberal Protestant from the German Idealist philosophical tradition. He was actually consistently opposed to Nordicism (the "blonde master race" theory that was later taken up by the Nazis). As he wrote "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language... in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians...To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar."

On Ashvahmedha, there are three full English translations of Yajurveda available, Griffith's, Keiths's and Chand's. Griffith and Keith both omit the controversial verses, because they find them too rude! So the evidence is actually the opposite of what you implied. The British translators were too prudish to publish them. Far from "mistranslating" to denigrate Hinduism, they actually suppressed the passages. Chand, a follower of Dayananda Saraswati, goes through extraordinary hoops to claim that the passage allegorically refers to spiritual duties. Paul B 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3

You have been reported on WP:AN3. Why were you using popups to revert contentious edits? Please respond there, and don't bring in content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

{{helpme}} regarding this query [4] which has gone unheeded twice. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reproduced below:

I had raised this issue earlier [5] but nothing came of it so I shall repeat:

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on countercurrents.org, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that the text be removed by an admin. Thanks.Rumpelstiltskin223 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved. The text removed. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, Rumpelstiltskin223. I've removed the offending content. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just removed the "Self-Respect Movement" section before I got your message. I've Googled the other parts of the article, and I haven't come up with anything copyright-infringing; if I've missed anything, though, please let me know. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caveats

(The following is a reply to a message by an anonymous account that has been deleted since.)

Re your edit summary: "No..You can not simply blank out others talks here..you have been doing that too often":

Actually, many people would say he can, because it's his user page.

To both of you: Can you please take a look at my cheat sheet? This might help you in cases like this. Please let me know your feedback. — Sebastian 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He looks like a block-evading user.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Please have a look at this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your reverts

Your reverts on Kannada, Origin of Rashtrakutas has been reverted because the citations provided by Sarvabhaum are considered incomplete. These citations are now being studied by user:Nichalp, a senior wikipedian who is mediating, for accuracy. You are adviced not to play with reverts untill the facts come out. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I second dinesh's suggestion. Suryakant Kamat is a respected historian, and is not a Psec denier.Bakaman 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] purpose of revert

I'm curious as to your reasoning for reverting the edits I made to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003. You give no reasons.74.73.39.219 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

you've since written to me on my talk page

"It seemed to me that you were removing a large chunk of text, which I though was just some random ip vandalism. If I am wrong then I apologize to you and please revert it back to your version. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)".

Thanks for responding, and no i didn't remove large chunks of text. The graph was misplaced in the wrong section and another editor edited the caption in a way which concealed the nature of letters about the graph which are being cited. I'd appreciate it if you would revert your own edit back. The other editor in question has a history of trying to intimidate people with the 3RR rule (while often violating it himself), and will use the fact that I did a revert here against me if the opportunity arises.74.73.39.219 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223. The actions of this anonymous editor concerning this image are discussed here:

Talk:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Please see the section titled: "images and captions" --Timeshifter 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to also read the section Graphs on that talk page. Timeshifter is making up several shifting and spurious excuses to first delete the graph (which has been on these pages for months) and the captions altogether, and now to conceal the nature of the letters that I linked to, which discuss errors and distortions in this graph. Timeshifter has now made up about several different excuses to delete these sourced facts. His latest is claiming that wiki doesn't allow links which require a (free) registration on the Lancet website. To back this up he truncated wiki guidelines to make it appear as if these guidelines supported his (latest) excuse.74.73.39.219 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He's also been using threats of 3RR blocks to try to intimidate me into accepting his excuses and letting his censored versions stand. So I put these sourced facts there, he censors them with spurious shifting excuses. I put them back, he censors again, etc. etc. Then he threatens to have me blocked for 3RR. Now he's decided to leave the graph there, but censor the caption to conceal the nature of the cited exchange in the Lancet, which he seems to be pretending not to be able to read. Then he's doing the same trick as above, trying to intimidate me with a 3RR block again if I don't let his censored version stand.74.73.39.219 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Revert

You just reverted 4 to 5 hours of work I did re: Roel Lungay as an anon editor. I understand your responsibility as an admin or vandal police, but please use your common sense. Check before you make a hasty conclusion. Just by the look of it, my work was clearly adding helpful links to the table items. I realized I didn't log in as a user but that doesn't give you any right to just revert stuff without being sure what you are doing. I expect more from admins or vandal police! After all you can claim to know better the Wikipedia principles than many of us newcomers. Make sure you're sure coz I'm no dumb either! --ChicogoN 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I reverted your edits in error. There is a lot of anonymous vandalisms going on and your edit just slipped in by mistake. Please forgive me and feel free to revert my reversion. I will do it myself in a few minutes. Thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

{{unblock|I did not commit 3RR. See explanation below}}

• Edit #1:[6] a revert
• Edit #2 [7] a revert
• Edit #3 [8] not a revert, an expansion _ move of text to Caste-related violence in India where it belongs [9]
• Edit #4 [10] Certainly not a revert Rumpelstiltskin223 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

• 1. 3 is a revert, you deleted the other person's section and replaced it with a different longer version of the section.

I did not remove it,

• I wasn't referring to #4, but rather the partial revert of Atulnischal, where you removed an adjective from the external link he added. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a revert??? Would you rather the phrase "Biggotted" (that too misspelled) be associated with the Archbiship of Russia?? That is a violation of WP:BLP and 3rr does not apply in that case [11]. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a revert, however you are correct about the BLP, so I have unblocked you. Sorry for the inconvenience. I remind you however, that you are still sitting on #3 revert. I think you should also put BLP in the edit summary to make your life easier - I do too, when necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good, but it says "Autoblocked" still. I thanks for ur advice. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto blocked

{{unblock-auto|1=66.240.254.10|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rumpelstiltskin223". The reason given for Rumpelstiltskin223's block is: "3RR Persecution of Hindus".|3=Blnguyen}} does it work? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Si, Gracias :) Rumpelstiltskin223 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think your comments would be better off in Talk:History of Pakistan, that article is the one that needs serious modifications. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashvamedha

No, wont be participating much in the debate. Am staying away from these things having not much knowledge of asvamedha myself. Manu Smrti, I know better. But not ashvamedha. Leafy 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found some text here. – http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/index.htm . — Nearly Headless Nick 13:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the Griffiths translation, which Paul Barlow claims is a forgery. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absolute BS. If he is saying ambedkar.org is a reliable source, then this should also be considered. Either remove all the disputed sources, or show each and every point of view. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A forgery?? You live in a world of your own don't you? And that's Keith's version, not Griffiths's. Griffiths' is not online. Paul B 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall look into this matter. I don't need any translations.Kanchanamala 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Since you inquired (on Leafy's page) regarding where to begin researching revisionist positions wrt the sacrifice, I would be grateful if you could do research into the position of Swami Dayananda Saraswati -- I placed a few google books links on his article, maybe you can find where he addresses the topic. It will probably turn out he bases his argument on Puranas or Upanishads. You could begin by searching the Mukhya Upanishads and the Mahapuranas for occurrences of the term "ashvamedha". A collection of Puranas and Upanishads is here. thanks for your help, dab (⁳) 14:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223, I suppose you are following my posts in wp:hnb. I would like to choose either from RigVeda itself or from Brahmanas, since they are perhaps older than Upanishads, and certainly not from the Puranas. Whether it is Griffith or Keith, I have to depend on translations from other people. I believe that if they have been chosen by www.sacred-texts.com, they are reasonably good. Aupmanyav 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi

I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

[edit] Technical help

What is the simplest way to compile a list of all the articles that I have created? Is there a technical way to do it without me having to sift thru my contribs? Rumpelstiltskin223 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this link. If you have any follow up questions, don't hesitate to ask. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Please comment at this talk page. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Sourced Material

Please don't removed sourced material from articles, such as you did at Devadasi [12]. This is considered vandalism. If you object to the material please discuss this on the talk page to reach consensus with other users. Thanks! The Behnam 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current article seriously downplays their post-ancient role as prostitutes. This is able to be verified in a number of places, while the downplaying seems to emanate from apologetic groups such as hindunet or revivalist exhortations. I simply searched the internet and found quite a bit of credible, academic information on this issue, and so it made complete sense to incorporate this into the article, which currently acts as if the prostitute role was some sort of misguided colonial view. These aren't extremist POVs I am adding here; it was very generous of me to concede HRW from the article. But that did not appease you. The fact is that it remains a common description of devadasi today, and much of the verifiable and reliable sources on the matter definitely study it for what it is, religious prostitution of children. You will not be able to continue to force your view onto a page in light of the numerous sources are introduced and the numerous others that I could introduce, so you will have to compromise. The Behnam 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://child-abuse.com/childhouse/childwatch/cwi/projects/indicators/prostitution/part1.html not bogus. Simply search for the word "devadasi"(not "devdasi") and you will find treatment of the topic. It describes its cult function. The Behnam 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the lead should represent all points of view. Hence, I kept the "colonialist" mention, even though its sourcing was not clear. But undue weight shall not be given to the minority apologetic views that argue that it isn't prostitution. The Behnam 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Im afraid you are misquslifying and misreading most of the work. Many "allege" that it is prostitution but offer little evidence to support it other than the usual "Hindus are animals kill them all" polemic we see so often nowadays". Sorry buddy, but that doesn't at all describe the sources. The Behnam 05:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a strong assertion that my sources advocate killing Hindus, without providing support. Back this up or concede that your statement regarding the sources was a lie. The Behnam 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to prove that my sources are biased, much less that they fall in with a "kill all Hindus" polemic. Seriously, provide a relevant example; I already know that some Western sources(Max Muller) are biased, but that doesn't mean all. Specifically, backup your assertions about killing Hindus, etc. The Behnam 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting Witzel; again, please be relevant. The Behnam 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate integration does not mean downplay. It is a common scholarly view, and some of my sources are not even Westerners. I agree that the back-and-forth is annoying; I would have preferred that you simply modified/improved my additions instead of simply reverting them. That would have avoided this big conflict which was started when you simply wiped away my contribution despite the number of sources I provided, even after conceding a large and notable organization, HRW, from the equation. I hope you understand why I find this objectionable. The Behnam 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why I felt it would have been better if you had improved upon my additions instead of removing them entirely. It is the way good article editing should work; I believe we can work this out without massive removals and massive arguments. I definitely understand the need to represent both sides; I was inspired to add the information because the section was too apologetic rather than neutral, and portrayed the "prostitute" view as more of a colonial view than a modern view. Please, don't revert when real content is added, as this can usually be worked with in a way satisfactory to both parties. The Behnam 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks in accordance with WP:NPA. Your assertion here[13] is an example of a personal attack in that you assert that User:The Behnam does not know how to assume good faith. This is uncalled for, and will not be tolerated for long. The Behnam 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't since he made a motive assignment (see above). Rumpelstiltskin223 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Warnings from Talk Page

You are not in place to decide whether or not a warning remains on your talk page, as you did here [14]. Continue this indefensible breach of policy and disciplinary action will be taken against you. If you feel that the warning was issued wrongly, discuss this with the other user and let the other user remove it for you; example [15]. The Behnam 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Quite Interesting

Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Inappropriate Removal of Warnings

You again removed warnings from your talk page [16]. You are not permitted to do this, and your assertions about you being allowed to do so if it is 'meant to scare you' are completely baseless. Besides, the warnings aren't meant to 'scare' you, they are meant to notify you that an action of yours is not appropriate. Please refrain from this behavior or action will be taken. The Behnam 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather obvious scare tactic. Won't work. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani Child Abuse

LOL, if we have sources mentioning the problem as existing in Pakistan, it only makes sense to use it, though you are right in foreseeing a terrible battle coming with this. Those who object will simply have to recognize that their distaste for certain facts alone does not dictate Wikipedia. Anyway, we shouldn't be intimidated by Pakistani objections; feel free to add information to the relevant articles. The Behnam 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind if you add Pakistan to the equation. I will even help you fight off mad users who just don't like the view and hence want to remove it if you need it. The Behnam 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kisaeng

Maybe there isn't controversy because it is neither a "big" current issue nor religious. It appears that consensus there admits that the practice has become more like prostitution, and few "traditional" houses exist. Or it could be like Geisha, where people simply hijack the issue to prevent the accurate prostitute description. If you see Geisha, it absurdly describes their roles as "music, dancing, and communication.", failing to mention the prostitute aspect. I don't really understand the motives behind downplayers for Geisha; most of the "not-prositute" proponents I have met in real life are kind-of-feminists that have read the memoirs book. Anyway, I find it just as absurd that the prostitute aspect in those articles is downplayed, but this doesn't mean devadasi's prostitution should be downplayed, especially when it has been a big issue. All in all, I would have preferred working off of my edit rather than reverting. The Behnam 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The hetaerae or whatever its called doesn't downplay the fact that they are prostitutes; it probably doesn't have a neutrality issue because it hasn't existed for many, many years. The Behnam 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because those articles downplay it doesn't mean that is right. In any case, devadasi has, for some reason, received much more attention and study over the prostitute aspect, and the article should reflect this in a neutral manner. What's the deal with these kisaeng and geisha stuff anyway? What's the deal with trying to portray these prostitutes as "artists." I mean, it isn't like they were originally celibate temple dancers. Apparently they enforce their view with such things as "A true geisha ("Geiko") is not paid for sex." I suppose there are 'untrue' geishas that do! Funny stuff. Anyway, devadasi needs to mention the fairly common views and issues surrounding them with proper weight. The Behnam 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The devadasi has had more coverage, so WP should reflect this, but you are right in that is unfair on Indians that their cult prostitution is called child prostitution while similar practices elsewhere in Asia are left alone or even defended by Westerners. But as you have pointed out,the religious difference is sometimes a role, but I don't think that was going on with most of my sources. I honestly don't know what is behind those oriental prostitute defenders, but it doesn't really affect the need for adjustment at the devadasi article. I'm not trying to "bully" Indians, but rather I am trying to make the article neutral in a way that reflects the prevalence of different views. I don't appreciate the accusation either. I ran into this article when I was reading about something Azerbaijan-related on some dispute page, took a look, and saw it needed some balancing. Perhaps I will get around to the other articles someday. In any case, we should just work on making a good article, and I think it would be best if you simply improved upon my contribution, since it did contain legitimate information. By the way, I have to study, go to bed, go to classes now so I won't respond for awhile. I look forward to working on this later. Thanks for your part in ending the hostile discussion. The Behnam 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adding anti-Pakistan bias

Okay,Im well aware of your inentions after you added some anti-Pakistan bias to the anti-Hindu article and the gun culture in Pakistan article.

Please stop it or I will have to make an issue of this on WP:ANI. Nadirali نادرالی

It would be helpful if you had raised this on the discussed pages of the articles or informed me before hand.DO not do this again.Nadirali نادرالی

No its not harassment or soliciting (which is not an offense anyway). Please keep your cool, be civil in every way in responding to Nadirali or discussing issues on the talkpages. There is absolutely no justification for anybody to adopt incivil ways - no provocation would justify that. Rama's arrow 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening you.Please stop with these silly accusations.Your edits to the gun culture in Pakistan is completely unsourced and biased.Nadirali نادرالی

Thanks for your positive response. Unfortunately, the average temperament is too high. There is no doubt that Nadirali's accusations violate WP:CIVIL. I advise both him and you to work on the lines of dispute resolution and not wage verbal battles or reverting. Sometimes it is just better not to respond or say anything, if you feel you can't control tempers. Rama's arrow 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some cooked up POV based "source".No facts can be seen there.I'm sorry that will not do.Nadirali نادرالی

No facts=bad source.Please stop making these incivil comments about "my opinion".It is not "my opinion" that I care about.I want articles to be neutral and factual,not some unencyclopediac accusations of "terrorism".On another note,I have studied in school in Pakistan and never studied from these so-called "textbooks" or anti-Hindu bias.There were also Hindu students in my school,so I think that would be enough to rebuff these silly accusations against us.You are starting to take this a bit too far.Nadirali نادرالی

Prejiduice exists in all countries now and then.No your source carrying some people's personal opinions is no good and is not "academic" as you state.[Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spread propaganda].Nadirali نادرالی

Alright then why not write a whole article on indian prejiduice towards chinese people. "Not state sanctioned in india".I see.So teaching indian children that Pakistanis are connected to so-called "Kashmiri terrorism" or that "Pakistan was carved out of (so-called) indian territorry" or that the "history of the indus belongs to india" or the indian armed forces bombing the holy shrine of a few helpless Sikhs is not what you'd call state- sanctioned prejiduice?Fine then.Nadirali نادرالی

[edit] Re:ip attacker

Hi - I've forwarded your message to Dmcdevit as I don't really know what to do in this matter. Rama's arrow 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal note

On a personal note I do confess I was baited into making a few personal attacks,but your accusation of me being an "Islamic fundmentalist" is not true.I am an agnostic as my userpage states.Nadirali نادرالی

Then Islamic irredentist is more appropriate? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Here is the sequence of events:

User:Nadirali (blocked for 2 weeks for making ethnic attacks, slurs and revert-warrings) returns and started drive-by tagging/rever-warring in articles on Islamic Fundamentalism [17]. I fix them since no sensible discussion has taken place except hysterical accusations of "bias" in academic sources, he then insults me. I warn him and he retaliates by fake-warning me, which I delete quite rightly.

The same with MinaretDk, who insulted me in coordination with Nadirali (they have been coordinating off-wiki per my evidence on WP:ANI[18])

For material relevant to the warning removals, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rumpelstiltskin223_.27s_Pattern_of_Removing_Warnings_from_His_Talkpage. The Behnam 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I got your e-mail, and I just want to clarify my position. First off, a different admin blocked the others, so if their punishments were unfair compared to yours then my apologies, can't do a whole lot about that. Basically I saw your reverts on an article and a talk page (article name escapes me), and that combined with your block log and your (original) attitude (which was far better in the email). In all honesty I probably would've blocked Minaret a bit longer as well (though maybe not quite a week as he has fewer blocks). I see what you're saying, and in reality this should be seen as a cool-off period for you three. When it's over, try not to overlap each other's edits, even if they are irritating you. Just move on, you'll feel better :). Also, keep in mind I'm relatively new to blocking/administrator disputes. You can ask the person who blocked the other two what kind of block you deserve (or I can) if that helps.--Wizardman 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you do that for me please?Rumpelstiltskin223 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored

You requesting an unblock is none of my concern.I am just concerned about you accusing me all the time.As a moderator on Pakhub,I have access to Nishan-e-Haider's IP adress.WOuld you like to see it?You seem to be convinced that me and this other user are "coordenating" against you when infact he and I were complaining of your reverts on 2 different articles.I have never conversed with this fellow before.I think if too many people have a problem with your behaviour,then you should learn something from it.Nadirali نادرالی

Says the fellow who got blocked for 2 weeks. How nice. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction.Of Four blocked people of which 3 you have personally attacked on multiple occasions.Nadirali نادرالی

I have never attacked anybody except point out that Szhaider was making anti-Hindu bigotry on his user page, for which he got blocked and talk page protected quite rightly. Don't make stuff up please. Also, your repeated incivility to people is not going unnoticed, and neither is your attempt to recruit trolls from pakhub. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] block assessment

Hi (To Rumpel and others who may read this) - it is not appropriate for me to be the admin to "officially" review this block, but the intepretation of 3RR policy is misapplied here. Having said that, this block is justified in my view as Rumpel got into revert-warring on multiple articles and talkpages while exchanging persistenly incivil messages - this is disruptive behavior. Rumpel, I strongly advise you to stop this pattern of behavior - this is not the first time. I had advised you just a couple of hours ago that its sometimes best not to reply to offensive posts. You are also aware of 3RR - while you may not have technically violated it, you were obviously revert-warring and dancing on the edge. I strongly advise you to take this block in good faith, cool down and change your editing ways. Rama's arrow 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing here. I am saying that the sentence was a bit calculated. I understand that there is the rule of Assuming good faith. However, given that the other users involved have been coordinating their efforts from pakhub, I assess that agf ceases to apply. Therefore, it is my conclusion that, once MinaretDk's block expires before mine, he and Nadirali will continue to revert-war across multiple articles with their extremist POV's that they have expressed in the pakhub forum and on their intents to coordinate here on wikipedia talk pages. Getting me "out of the way" so to speak was part of a greater starategem in this case. I fear that, given that Nadirali's cohorts have been blocked for a longer period, he will feel an obligation to "fight the good fight" on the behalf of his comrades, which would be disastrous to wikipedia.

I am not technically skilled enough to list all the relevant diffs in a short time, so I ask you to study the contribs of Nadirali and MinaretDk closely as I have and see the coordination effort at play. By all means, keep me blocked, but I strongly suggest, for the sake of intellectual validity of wikipedia, that similar treatments be extended to the other parties as well. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your attitude is completely wrong - never does a WP policy cease to apply, especially not thru "tit-for-tat" rationales. Also, you must use the behavior of others as an excuse. Any and all admins at work will look after the article content - you please concentrate on improving your own conduct and editing. Rama's arrow 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken above - you were talking about AGF - if there is sufficient reasonable evidence, you cannot "assume good faith," obviously. However, one never has the license to be incivil, make accusations and behave in a disruptive fashion just because of some provocation or suspicion. You should have gone thru WP:DR. Please understand that "tit-for-tat" never works, especially not on WP - if one could stop behaving as per norm for such rationales, WP would become a jungle within hours. Rama's arrow 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely to prevent wp from becoming jungle that I worry abt. Understand that I have been attacked THREE times today. Once by that multiple anon sock guy, once by MinaretDk and once by Nadirali. Given the barrage of atatcks that I have received, can you not understand why I have cause to be upset and lose myself for a brief period?Rumpelstiltskin223 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I too get upset at times - there are a lot of people here who irritate me. But does that give one "carte blanche" to revert-war on articles, exchange incivilities and accusations? No. Plus, your approach to preventing WP from becoming a jungle, worrying that MinaretDk's block will expire before yours is the wrong way to think. Have some respect for process, for your colleagues and admins. You cannot consider yourself an avenger or guardian of content or a POV - work with your colleagues to solve problems - don't resort to factionalism, "us vs. them." Again, don't use other's behavior as an excuse. Rama's arrow 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point there. Unfortunately, such "factionalism" is a sad reality on wikipedia as I am beginning to see. It saddens me to see this, but what to do? Anyways, I will ruminate over your points. However, I still maintain that warring and POV-pushing will continue in these articles even tho I have been blocked, making the preventative measure not have prevented anything. I only wish that all editors could be impartial and neutral and not edit with an agenda against certain ethnic/religious groops, but that wish will fall on deaf ears unless WP top people decide to change policies and create some sort of heirarchy like citizendium plans to do... Rumpelstiltskin223 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of my user page

And now nadirali re-enacts the same vandalism on my user page that an anonymous troll did who, I may add, is a sock of a banned user, in an attempt to discredit me. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam

Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] karl pilkington

you edited my karl pilkington edit. why? those are his favourite words. or as he put it, "favourite word" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.109.28.50 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Emerging superpower

Emerging superpower articles are up for deletion. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't sockpuppet

I've reset your block per checkuser confirmation. I had half a mind to make it two weeks, but thought that you should be given this one last chance to learn. Please sit out the week block, don't use IP's or other accounts to circumvent the block, and come back a better editor. Daniel.Bryant 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Just a response to the above allegations against me. I am in a long line of editors who have had to tolerate RumpleStiltSkin's accusations of being an Islamist fundementalist. My edits have been with a purpose to keep articles factual and neutral. Rumplestiltskin/anon IP/Hkeklar has done everything to skew articles to present a favorable view of a certain extreme line of violent right wing hindu extremists. I have no 'anti-hindu' sentiments whatsoever,being an athiest I'm certainly not sympathetic to radical Islamists. I do believe in the need for articles not to be skewed such that they promote misinformation as historical fact. MinaretDk 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MinaretDK:"There is nothing wrong with Jamaat-e-Islami" [19]. This is regarding a party that has been implicated in the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Hindus in the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities and constantly advocates for "death to malauns" (Hindu infidels) and the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate. Then again, I do not suppose a Jamaati can see past the chauvinistic savagery of such views enough to be neutral, indoctrinated by the blind irredentism and hatred for Hindus that crosses the bounds of hysteria into the realm of paranoia.

And now he is canvassing wikipedia users to try to get me blocked even further [20] based on this spurious nonsense about sockpuppetry, and keeps insinuating that I am some sort of "filthy Hindu" from the pages of a Jamaati's madrassa-distributed leaflet. All this despite my many good edits to Islamophobia, Persecution of Muslims, Islam in Myanmar and other articles relating to Islam. It seems that the dictatorship of the block button is the best that the madrassas could teach the AK-47 weilding Jamaatis and their cohorts in Lashkar-e-Toiba. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See the Jamaati bloodlust with your own eyes, gentle reader:

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/22spec.htm?q=tp&file=.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1609049.stm http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/02aziz.htm http://www.uscirf.gov/countries/publications/policyfocus/BangladeshPolicyBrief.pdf http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA130062001!Open http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1002200,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1645499.stm

Of course, according to this guy, Amnesty International and BBC are all "partisan hacks". Apaprently the only "non-partisan" sources are Jamaati-approved madrassa leaflets.

http://kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/anatomyofislamism.html

I hope admins will respond to the attacks in this post appropriately. I've done nothing to even suggest I'm a Muslim, much less a fundementalist. It's true that the mainstream Jamaat i Islami in Bangladesh has tempered its views due to public pressure, that doesn't mean I support them. I'm a secularist. All this other nonsense he's stating what with phrases like "filthy hindu" is part of his game of browbeating Muslim wikipedians, something he's done to many other editors before.MinaretDk 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And now Minaret calls content dispute vandalism to try to bully another user, being himself disruptive[21][22] with his capital case edit summaries etc[23][24] showing the extentto which the Jamaati would go to to hide the truth by deflecting attention from their mass-murdering atrocities. Naturally admins do nothing to stop this, for what value is an infidel's life here? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In this post, he tries to game the 3RR system by gently enticing another user to revert. How nice! [25] Rumpelstiltskin223 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Bangladeshi myself, I know full well what Pakistanis did to Bangladeshis, Muslim and Hindu alike, in 1971. Don't frame me as some sympathizer for their genocide. I don't owe you any kind of explanation, and anyone who takes your ranting as anything more than insanity is being foolish. If a third party asks me to fully express my POV, I'd be more than willing to do so. The user I reported did in fact violate 3RR, and that's what the 3RR reporting page is for. MinaretDk 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense, now. Both of you, or else page protections/blocks/extensions of blocks will be put in place. MinaretDk, if you still think this is Hkelkar, take it to WP:AE, and make a case using diffs there. Rumpelstiltskin223, don't respond to the baiting. Please, let it go for now - slandering each other because of religion does you no favours. Daniel.Bryant 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has now been protected. Still, cut it out, both of you. Daniel.Bryant 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indef-blocked

I have indef-blocked this account enforcing this ruling made by ArbCom regarding Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please unblock/review block

Rumpelstiltskin223 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read this post Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef-block_of_Rumpelstiltskin223_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 and would like to explain the situation described and misinterpreted in checkuser. The checkuser states that I have been using an "open proxy". That statement is wrong. I used a gateway machine only once when I was editing from outside my area of residence as I wanted security. The machine I am using right now is no open proxy or anything but my work computer so please check the ip address and verify this. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the results of the checkuser, where the indef-block sock puppet MinaretDk has said:

"I can pretty much guarantee that Hkelkar is editing again. He made this following massive edit to add text to the article Persecution of Hindus:[7]. The anon IP address edited again recently to replace "citations needed" attached to Hkelkar's edits (under the banned sock "Shiva's Trident") with sources to several of those edits.[8] These sources are books, not websites, so it's impossible that anon simply went online and searched the text. One of the books is a 1969 edition, the other 1953. That two unrelated editors would know the exact sources to several occurances of small amounts of texts is almost unfathomable. The sources aren't popular books, and the sourced content aren't verses of poetry or scripture. Added to all the past cases of suspicions against Hkelkar, and the points I raised above, the case that Hkelkar is back is solid. If the anon turns out to match Rumplestiltskin's IP, then it can be safely confirmed that Rumplestiltskin is Hkelkar, regardless of a change of address by the editor. MinaretDk 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"

Well, first see that this user himself was an extremely disruptive editor with biases and himself a sock for which he has been blocked. Also, the sources I used were books and readily available online for anybody through google books, my local library or the UCSD (University of California San Diego) library to which I have access through a friend who goes there. That does not establish any similarity with this other user User:Hkelkar whose sock puppet I am accused of being. May an admin please review this indef block based on the new information? Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a post here since it was from an anonymous ip address possibly masquerading as User:jpgordon. If this was in error then please notify here. the diff of the post is [26]

Thank you for your quick response.100 times? That's very odd. I only used it a couple of times when I was away. Are you sure you don't mean 100 edits, because my overall edit frequency is several hundred per day. Please explain. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This user should be unblocked. Such a block is loss for the project.--D-Boy 09:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Anant Priolkar

An editor has nominated Anant Priolkar, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Priolkar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An editor is continuously vandalising my Bio over dispute related to Talk:Anton Balasingham. The editor tried hard to delete my Bio from wikipedia. You can see the evidence here(1) and here(2)' The editor is taking an undue interest over my Bio and deleted over Citation. I have restored the information. I requested an Administrator to check my Bio whether Citations are enough. I also taken this matter for Request for Comment. Though I have off-line media archives(which are attached on Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I couldn't bring it to the articles. Now I am very much frustrated. Please help me on this matter.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

[edit] AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An AFD on my Bio Rajkumar Kanagasingam is brought only to distract the offences at wikipedia after stealing my e-mail address and thereafter my wiki passwords by Netmonger and his/her group and nothing else. How this user can bring this AFD before he clears himself from the offences which is now under investigation under an Administrator’s supervision and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik/New Version

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Zakir Naik/New Version, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Betazed.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Betazed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Indophobia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indophobia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indophobia. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)