User talk:Freedom skies/Archive 2

Image

[1] This is where I found the image of the Hindu vampire I uploaded for the article Vampire. Hope that helps! Judgesurreal777 12:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Ref: [2]

Nice meeting you, and many thanks for your words of praise. We all should always try to make this the best encyclopedia. --Bhadani 13:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RakshasaWarriorINK.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RakshasaWarriorINK.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Idcn.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Idcn.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Shaolinmural.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shaolinmural.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani nationalism

Be prepared for massive revert-warring from the Pakistani editors. I suggest you put the article in your watchlist.Hkelkar 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know there is no need to AfD the capital-case "Ancient" article. Just redirect is fine.This will only bring about more trouble from the Indophobes. Best to leave it at redirect or put speedy delete using {{db|<reason>}}.

Hkelkar 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Achievements of Ancient Indian civilization

Your recent edit to Achievements of Ancient Indian civilization (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 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Garbage Article

Take a look at thi sutter nonsense about "Bangladeshi victory" in 2001.

Indo-Bangladesh Conflict of 2001

Hkelkar 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani nationalism

FYI, S Seagal has made 3 reverts there and you haven't.Hkelkar 07:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian influence on Chinese martial arts

Thanks for the kind words. I know some people get overly attached to an article (especially one they started) and get severely offended when "others" edit "their" article, I'm happy to see you're not one of those people. There's still more to do though, IMHO. The references need standardizing (it currently uses two different formats) and checked to make sure they're from reliable scholarly publications and not just some martial arts studio/website looking to profit off of selling a legend. In the final section, what exactly is meant by "negationism" should be explained as well as what exactly the phrase "revisionist claims" refers to. I must admit that I don't know much about the subject, or any martial arts for that matter (other than Muay Thai). Politics, History and Information Research & Analysis are more my arena of study. I look forward to learning more from the expansion of this article.--WilliamThweatt 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of flying aces in India-Pakistan wars

I am still assuming good faith ... but only just. If the article is deleted I will add the material to Indo-Pakistan Wars and link that article from Flying ace. But please do not delete the link in Flying ace until the article is deleted. If you persist, you will be in breach of WP:3RR. Thank you. Grant65 | Talk 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited by both Pakistan claims and Indian claims. Please read the references before resorting to revert wars. Idleguy 11:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are arguing just for the sake of it. Those sites quote directly from PAf records and citations as well as Indian records. The truthfullness isn't the point, whether it is sourced is. btw, the citation comes from Pakistan official records. And the counter claim comes from VAYU space, a IAF journal, not a private claim as you belive. Idleguy 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

Your edits to the article on Muhammad Mahmood Alam, such as this one, constitute original research. The article as it is now contains factual info only: list of confirmed kills, mention of claims of unconfirmed kills, and mention of claims made by the Indian side on the actual number of kills, all with references. Your edit removes all this and replaces it with sheer speculation, with no sources provided. As such, it will be reverted by concerned editors such as myself and User:Idleguy. Note also that another re-revert on your side will be a violation of the three-revert rule, futher exacerbated by not giving any reasons in the edit summary. In general, if you find yourself revert-warring with several editors over an article, it is a good sign that changes you want to introduce are controversial, and are best discussed on the relevant talk page first. In particular, please explain what exactly you find wrong in the article in its present state. If there are indeed any issues, then surely we can resolve them, introducing any relevant information you believe to be missing (assuming there are sources for it, of course), without removing relevant and sourced information already present in the article. -- int19h 14:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After having another glance at the original sources, I agree that they are not quite reliable. As it is, the recent version of the article by User:59.94.97.243, with your cleanups, looks best in terms of factualness. Now to get User:Idleguy to accept this argument as well... -- int19h 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to involve another Pakistani editor as I don't want this to become a propaganda writeup. The sources while not the best available, quote PAF citations and that is more important. They are not original research either. The simple fact is that PAF claims 5, IAF claims 4. And as a Wikipedian we just have to tell the truth, as long as they are remotely credible. Idleguy 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have mistaken my actions. I intended to involve Redarrow (not a sockpuppet) because he was previous involved in edits related to airforce related articles, including editing MM Alam. And I invited his editing to allow a Pakistani take on this before your compromise edits were made. Anyways, instead of trying to paint me as Mir Sadiq or Mir Jaffer, you should understand that the source includes Defence Journal from Pakistan. It is arguably biased in tone and has a tendency to inflate numbers, but it can be termed as a fairly reliable source given the context. DoorDarshan's regular telecast only started in 1965 and limtied to Delhi, so you'd be hard pressed to find anything meaningful back then about this. Just because BBC doesn't talk about this, doesn't mean they are the authority on this subject matter. One of the sources includes Official War History from which BR has culled its statistics. If you need, it should be tagged as better cite required instead of blanking it. Nishan-e-Haider is given based on what Pak govt. thinks as "above and beyond the call of duty". Air aces don't necessarily qualify for a nation's highest gallantry.

P.S. Actually David Irving tried to deny the holocaust. I'm not denying the kills of Alam. You appear to be. Idleguy 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization

Please read history of Korea, or Gojoseon, Gojoseon is only a legend, it has no ruin and no evidence of existence. Zone101 07:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

You shouldn't accuse people of something that they didn't do. you can report me if you wish, but i have given you the citations for the articles. I don't know as to why you are so dead set on removing my citations. you should read the shahar article more closely. like most historians, he agrees that it is nothing more than a legend. As for why i reported you to vandalism, i actually thought we were haveing a relatively civil relationship until you started removing my citations or adding "citations needed" to my citations... in the parenthesis next to the names of the authors, i have the citations of the books and the articles that they wrote... you need only look at them yourself... there is no requirement to have a certain format for citations. Kennethtennyson 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't accuse people of something that they didn't do.
I don't.
you can report me if you wish, but i have given you the citations for the articles.
I was'nt going to report you for your citations. The report would have been about the sockpuppet.
you should read the shahar article more closely. like most historians, he agrees that it is nothing more than a legend.
I have, it took me five minutes to find it. You should do the same, find it and put a link of it in the article and actually cite it. If it's on the net why don't you work to go get it?
you started removing my citations or adding "citations needed" to my citations
You're at a library. How hard is it to actually get ISBNs and page numbers for the citations? I have made allowances in the past but after your recent actions you'll understand if I don't your words at face value and ask you to provide either links or ISBNs with page numbers so I can verify the content for myself.
there is no requirement to have a certain format for citations
There is none, for citations.
Provide ISBN and page numbers at the very least so that the others can verify.
Freedom skies 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M M Alam

The article is being sourced thru references properly. dont revert the versions . jaiiaf 04:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And stop calling me Mir Jaffer. It's amusing to be called such, but it doesn't help you in your cause. Quotes, if excessively lengthy, can be shortened and moved elsewhere where it would be more apt, like in Op Gibraltar. Thanks. Idleguy 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to MM Alam page

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Operation Jackpot

Hi, thanks for the message. I do read a bit about the Military history of the Indian subcontinent, so I will fill in if I know about it. But I have been looking for sometime about Operation Jackpot, but can't find much about it except that it was an attack by the suicide squads of Bangladesh Navy during the war, and is a very well known operation of the Bangladesh Navy. If I find out more, I will add it. In the meantime, cheers, and keep up the good work.Rueben lys 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your edit of Hinduism.

31/10/2006.

Dear Freedom Skies,

Pl. bear with me for removing your edit of Hinduism. The sense or significance of your edit is un-understandable. Dharma means religion. Dharmic means religious. What is founding religion of Dharmic religions?

Swadhyayee 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 44 30 October 2006 About the Signpost
Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology.

I am sorry, I misunderstood your intentions. No hard feelings? :D Zazaban 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas

Hello! The criteria that you have suggested for the speedy deletion of the article are not valid as per WP:CSD. You can put the article up for AfD instead and state your reasons for doing so there. (aeropagitica) 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't defend the article on my Talk page, plead your case here instead. (aeropagitica) 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.254.121.169

Your deletions of cited materials are VANDALISM, if you continue Admins will be notified.--216.254.121.169 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from an unsigned IP you act like you know the rules. NPOV, original reseach...... sound familiar ?? How about following those + finding a login ID and actually logging in like people who actually do follow those rules. Freedom skies 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar :).Hkelkar 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic Religion

Sorry, I am not aware of what is Dharmic Religion. Only, after putting editing your edits, I read somewhere about Dharmic Religion being something beyond my present understanding. Could you pl. explain me what is Dharmic Religion? Swadhyayee 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

If you could drop in a word there then I would be very grateful.

WP:RFAr#User:Hkelkar

Hkelkar 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding Gautama Buddha

If you want the article semi-protected then you should ask for it on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protectionHkelkar 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

Hey, in the statement, please write "Statement by Uninvolved User:Freedom Skies" in the header. You have not been involved in the Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-PseudoBuddhist-Secular dispute, so you may want to note that in the header.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected tags

Please don't put "protected" tags on unprotected articles, as you did on Buddhism and Hinduism in this edit. If you want a page protected please list it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Hinduism

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Saavak123 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Its obvious there is some socking going on.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Saavak123 as an obvious sock. Please do, however, try to keep this matter in perspective - the admin who closes the AfD will not be taken in by a bunch of sock votes, so there's no need for you to police the matter yourself. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Excessive vandalism in Buddhism and Hinduism

Hm. I'm not too familiar with the specifics, here, but it doesn't seem patently obvious, to me -- I'd suggest you make a request for CheckUser to establish more information, and work from there. Luna Santin 22:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India

Please watch that article closely. User:Fowler&fowler wants it put that the British exclusively abolished Sati whereas I contend (with refs supplied in the Talk Page) that Raja Ram Mohan Roy lobbied the British into doing it. The Bengal presidency ba prior to Roy is irrelevant as other bigger parts of India (like the Maratha Confederacy) had also banned Sati centuries ago.Hkelkar 07:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.TerryJ-Ho, If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you? India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit"

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bakasuprman"

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 45 6 November 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration election campaigns begin Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23 . Bakaman Bakatalk 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Mir Jaffer here. (pun intended) Please stop adding entire paragraphs from the book. I'm keeping only the relevant quotes on the war. If you want, why not quote the entire book? Might as well make the 65 war a repository of what Stanley Wolpert had to say. I hope you can understand. I'm planning to post a straw poll if we disagree on the talk page to arrive at a consensus on how to tackle this. I've used some of what he has to say in other related articles.

btw, take a look at Martial Race theory where one Pak editor with racial and religious bias is attempting to push his POV, though my sources are reliable third party or Pakistani ones that implicates pakistan's obsession of that theory and their downfall in 65 and 71 wars. It appears User:Street Scholar doesn't have a thorough grasp on subcontinental history and doesn't read the sources and is making problems. I'm asking u to look since you seem inclined towards the martial arts. Tx. Idleguy 05:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shooter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shooter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabaddi

Hi, I noticed that you added several categories. Actually, it is a team sport so the Category:Individual sports is not applicable. Category:Combat sports is a super cat of Category:Martial arts. And this is not really something under Category:Arts. The two other categories, Category:Indian martial arts and Category:Martial arts may be applicable, so I've kept them. Thanks. --Ragib 07:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 46 13 November 2006 About the Signpost
Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Buddhism

I tried editing the article, but it is write-protected. I looked at the talk page, but I didn't really see any active conversations that require my attention. I don't really know very much about Hinduism, especially from a historical perspective.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember User:Hornplease??

Yeah, that one is back and has been citing some of your research in Arbcomm to get us banned (his agenda for a long time). Look at this post of his[3]. I think that you should comment in his evidence page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence Hkelkar 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Bodhidharma

Hey, I just want you to know that you violated the three-revert rule on Bodhidharma. I haven't reported it or anything, but take this as a sign you need to go discuss your changes on the Talk: page. Good luck. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Bodhidharma

You have also been asked several times to discuss your point of view on the Talk pages before making these radical changes. Please do so. --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Zen

The same applies to this article. I have already mentioned that your previous edit removed several sources and added a link to a highly-contentious "Negationism" section of another article, and I asked you to discuss on the talk page first. In response, you have simply put your edits back again. Please stop doing that, and first enter into a proper dialogue to see if you can get support from the community for your point of view. It is much too radical and contentious simply to be put in on your say-so. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Dalrymple (historian)

Would you please take some time to elaborate a criticism of Dalrymple based on his attacks on Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul? I have found an article here by Farrukh Dhondy that can be used as a ref for it.Hkelkar 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some spelling etc corrections. I have also added comments (you'll see them in the edit box) about sentences that I am not so sure about. Do look over them, put it in the Dalrymple article and thank you for your efforts.Hkelkar 11:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some slight re-arrangements and added some bits from the last pages of the article, detailing criticism of Dalrymple. If you think it's ok now, then could you plug it into Dalrymple's article?Thanks.Hkelkar 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you OK?

We've certainly had our differences in the past but accusing others of belonging to a cabal isn't your usual style.

You don't seem your usual self.
It's almost as if you're someone else.
JFD 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall either messing with your article

You removed well-sourced material from Shaolin Kung Fu, Bodhidharma, Batuo and other articles that represent quite a few man-hours of research on my part.

I mean, what was the point of this edit?
You remove a perfectly useful disambig from the top of the page as well as actual quotation from Batuo.
And you accuse others of vandalism?

or starting the cabal issue

A few editors, with Han Chinese nationalists amongst them, tried to write in the second para itself that Bodhidharma did not exist.

— Freedom skies, 03:10, 17 November 2006

JFD 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your article I meant Disputed Indian origins of Chinese martial arts.

Kenny was working on your version. I provided dual links to both our versions. Kenny later on shifted the content from those versions to his page. At the cost of repition, dual links. This is what I propose for Chan/Zen. Let the mention of conflicting conspiracy theories not be done in these articles but instead have them link up to the main Bodhidharma article.

You remove a perfectly useful disambig from the top of the page as well as actual quotation from Batuo.

And you removed Batuo himself from the Shaolin while attempting to push a fake title for a webpage. Getting worked up and always assuming the worst ?

And you accuse others of vandalism? Kindly read above.

A few editors, with Han Chinese nationalists amongst them, tried to write in the second para itself that Bodhidharma did not exist.

— Freedom skies, 03:10, 17 November 2006

Pre-emptive guilt ?? ?? You did not contribute then why would you take that so personally ??

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidharma

I really don't understand why you would refer to the material in question on Bodhidharma as a "conspiracy theory"? It is as if you are using this simply as an epithet. Also, the word "negationism" means "denial of historic crimes", and so it is clearly a non sequitur to use in this case.

I don't know who or what the "Ryuchi, etc. citations" you mention are. I reverted a few of your edits to Bodhidharma simply because they were made illicitly (more than 3 reverts per day), so I don't know all the details in question. I have certainly noticed you removing text from pages, though.

The bottom line is that we begin the Bodhidharma article by saying, "Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk ... traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China", which implies that he was a real person. This means that we have a responsibility to clarify the fact that he may or may not actually have lived. Otherwise, we are failing in our responsibilty as encyclopedia editors to correctly inform our readers. If other articles about religious figures are failing to live up to this standard, I suggest that you politely and conservatively take it up on the talk pages of those articles.

By the way, I've noticed that there have been several occasions recently when you have reverted other editors edits with messages describing those edits as "vandalism". This is entirely unacceptable and it is imperative that you stop it. Vandalism is when someone goes to a page and deliberately defaces it, such as by changing the words "George Bush" to "Stupidface McChimpy". It is very uncivil for you to accuse other editors of deliberately defacing articles.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The reason that we must introduce the reader to conflicting theories about Bodhidharma before describing his "actual" biography is that he doesn't have an actual biography. He is the subject of numerous stories. To state things about his biography without clarifying that they are not historically documented would be misleading. I have no hesitation about mentioning other theories by scholars.
2. "Negationism" is not a word that appears in either Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary. However, Wikipedia states that "Negationism is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism." Clearly, this is not relevant to Bodhidharma.
3. "Could I not say the same of the editors in opposition ?" No. None of the other editors reverted the same page more than 3 times in one day.
4. Brittannica is hardly the only source we have at our disposal. We are trying to make the best possible encyclopaedia, which may involve making one better than Brittannica.
5. I have seen you use the term "vandal" or "vandalism" in reference to edits which are obviously not vandalism. This is incivility, and you can be blocked for it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bodhidharma currently has a biography section, but it does not describe any "actual biography". Instead, it consists of passages from various works mentioning a monk named Bodhidharma. They sometimes conflict with each other; for example, one states that he is Persian, but another states that he is South Indian.
2. In any event, "negationism" is a totally inappropriate word to use in a Wikipedia article on this subject. It's meaning is clearly derogatory, and it's not at all clear to me why you think this is political revisionism.
3. You say, "I know all too well that the other editors are privy to the 3RR, sir.", but why the heck don't you actually follow the rules then?
4. You are blatantly misusing the term "vandalism", and you must stop doing it. Here are the first few examples that I notice among your contributions: Dravidian martial arts: "rv vandalism by Kenny"; you are in fact reverting Kennethtyson removing some information that he feels is not properly sourced (it is sourced from the website of a travel agent); similar edits occurred on three other pages; you twice [4][5] referred to edits by JFD on Indian influence on Chinese martial arts as "severe vandalism", but these were actually disagreements about what sources to include; a similar dispute on Zen, Chan, and Batuo led you to describe JFD and Kennethtyson's edits there as vandalism; on Shaolin you say "undoing Han Chinese vandalism which removes Batuo as the founder of the Shaolin", but the edit is in fact part of a disagreement about how much text about Batuo to include in the article, not vandalism; and on Bodhidharma you twice [6][7]referred to "vandalism by an unsigned IP", when in fact all he had done was to move back some text that you had recently moved out of the intro. None of these cases are actually vandalism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Shaolin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 12:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 47 20 November 2006 About the Signpost
One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks. Khoikhoi 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post

I will do so, thanks.Hkelkar 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Vedic Sanskrit

It seems you've broken 3RR on the article. I'll now report this on the board. CRCulver 20:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of "gleefully" inflicting 3RR on you. I merely warned you here as the guidelines instruct me to. I find little glee on WP of late, and I certainly don't take pleasure in revert warring or their consequences. CRCulver 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's record on 3rr is not spotless either. See Wiki is not a soapbox as well. The article is called Vedic Sanskrit not "JP Mallory and Indologists on Vedic Sanskrit". I'm sorry I didnt look into the article sooner before tendentious editors decided to revert-war with you to push POV.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRculver. Your words were followed by an infliction without observing my response to them. Do no think for one second that your post amounted to a warning. Freedom skies 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hr block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Rama's arrow 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian influence on Chinese martial arts

In this edit you have silently reverted an edit I made (deletion of 'legendary') without giving any reason, discussing on the talk page, nor even using an edit summary. Could you please always, at the very least, use an edit summary so others can see why you are making the changes you do? To do otherwise is at the very least impolite. If you disagree with my edit, please indicate why so that we can discuss. regards. --MichaelMaggs 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies, you've done it again. In this edit you revert without discussion a live issue on the talk page with the high-handed edit summary "(the BBC attributes Shaolin Kung Ku to Ta mo, agree with it or not removal of citation on misinterpretation will not be allowed.)" Please stop. You are damaging the project and wasting people's time. You run the risk, unless you change your behaviour, of finding yourself banned for much longer periods than you have been so far. --MichaelMaggs 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem arguments on Talk:Bodhidharma

Please avoid Ad hominem arguments, like the one you used here. They're unacceptable and violate WP:NPA. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 11:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael

No hostility assumed; simply asking that you avoid ad hominem attacks and that you use edit summaries. --MichaelMaggs 11:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again, on Zen

It's less than a day after the expiry of your WP:3RR block, and you have repeated the offence already. Please bear in mind the effort that others are having to put in to deal with these rule-breaches. I have posted a report on WP:AN/3RR. --MichaelMaggs 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on November 23 2006 to Zen

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Dalrymple (historian)

Two users (probably socks), vandalized the article and made numerous unsourced statements to it.Hkelkar 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scotsboy1 got 3 other socks and started mass-reverting William Dalrymple (historian). I have tagged them and opened a case on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Scotsboy1. I also have a sock farm on Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Scotsboy1. Might want to take a look.Hkelkar 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]