This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki Raja (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 5 February 2007 (→Filing a complaint against Asian2duracell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:11, 5 February 2007 by Wiki Raja (talk | contribs) (→Filing a complaint against Asian2duracell)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


User	Talk	Leave me a message	Essays	Appreciation	Toolbox	Let's talk it over	Wikimedia Commons

An Admonition

Please don't insert your statements inbetween someone's post as you did in the Dharmic Faith's talk page. IAF

RfA Smile!

User:Extranet has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Sorry about your loss on your RfA. I hope we can continue to be friends. Have a great day!

Thank you

That entire strawman was beginning to feel like an intentional effort to nullify my arguments through intentional misstatement and repetition of misstatements. Actually, it kind of still does! In any case, thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Redux. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Hello, I am new uesr and can you tell me how to all "talk" after my name? Niraj 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!!

Thanks a lot for your help!!! Can I have the Niraj as the display name? My username is Nirajrm... --Nirajrm 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User name???

Hi, I had tried to creat the account with Niraj as the username, but it says the user exist with that name. Personally I also believes that the "nirajrm" will be fine. Thanks for your help. Can you tell me how can I add the "Useboxes" to my profile? --Nirajrm 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but from where can I get those boxes?

Should I?

I would enter this in Arbitration but I cannot follow the arbitration and don't know how to do it or where.

Jefferson Anderson shows up on my talk page on January 12, having had no interactions with me before and posts the following many posts all on that day, then lists me as a rude editor on his user page along with a Mattisse sockpuppet box. January 12 sequential diffs:

My edit

*JA (his first edit on my page but he copied something above that I did not write . **I don't know that to which you are referring when you say he copied something above that you did not write. What was it that he copied? ***The statement about WP:SOCK above his posting here - I don't know where that is from - maybe he posted that first. That was a very busy day, mail-wise and I did not notice at the time.

JA first edit titled Sockpuppet harassment (Note: person who posted on my page just prior to JA is A Ramachandran - one of the batch of socks just blocked wasn't he?)
JA post #2
JA post #3
- This is a diff of you archiving stuff. --BostonMA 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Maybe this is right (I don't have the diff thing down pat"

JA
JA
JA after my apology
I copy my replies from his page to mine
JA
JA
I apologise again
- This is a diff to an by JA, not an apology by you.
  - I cover the apologies below
and again
JA
JA
JA
JA puts list of rude editors on his page
- This is not a diff of JA putting a list of rude editors on his page
  - O.K. I can't trace that down right now but he did post it. Do you doubt that?
    - Rude edit (chronologically, it may in wrong place)
JA
JA
another user advises him
JA puts Mattisse sockpuppet tag on his user page
someone else removes template (Salix alba)

The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Sincerely, Mattisse

One apology:
Two apology:
Three apology

I'll screw it up if I try to fix it above -- these are the three apologies. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know already as you post to Rosencomet often, Jefferson Anderson has posted there also Sincerely, Mattisse

If you follow this diff down and look at the page, you will find that Jefferson Anderson's first posting on my page was some obscure sockpuppet references and changes he had made in policy or something -- I didn't have the patience to read it. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is a mess -- I would delete it but I am afraid

Redone diffs:

JA to Rosencomet on January 7

JA first edit to me titled Sockpuppet harassment (Note: person who posted on my page just prior to JA is A Ramachandran - one of the batch of socks just blocked wasn't he?)
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA says I offended him
JA
JA List of rude editors
JA
JA
JA says he wasted his time as I have 15 sockpuppets
JA says he accepts my apology
JA responds to another user about JA's user page
JA removes rude editor list
JA JA apologises to me "in return"
JA puts up Mattisse sockpuppet user box

This ends JA posts of January 12
My opologies on same date, January 12
One apology:
Two apology:
Three apology

These are JA susequent relevant posts

JA restores userbox after Salix alba removes it
JA formats userboxes
JA replies to BostonMA
JA replies again to BostonMA
JA reply #3 to BostonMA
JA more formatting of userboxes
These end on January 17

I have revised the above diffs using User Contributation in sequence.

Sincerely, Mattisse 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for commenting on my RfC page. I hope everything is going well with you. --Aminz 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, patience, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc

Ayyavazhi

Exactly what you are telling from the section undue weight? Ayyavazhi is definitely notable than zoroastrians, and few thousand jews regarding majority minority issues. Also in the article there is no output of any views of Ayyavazhi but mere mention of the word 'Ayyavazhi', That's all. Also what voilation? Please don't use such words, Thank You. - Paul 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, in a list of religions of India, Ayyavazhi is not more notable than Jews or Zoroastrians. If you look at lists of religions of India, for example the census, or literally thousands of books on the religions of India, Ayyavazhi is rarely mentioned. Misplaced Pages gives weight according to the weight given by experts in the particular field of interest. Please do not continue to make contentious edits on the India page without consensus of other editors of the India page. It is disruptive. Sincerely, --BostonMA 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling the university papers cited are all false reports? Or, the University scholars are not experts? - Paul 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Misplaced Pages gives weight according to the weight given by experts in the particular field of interest. When making a list of religions of India, we give weight according to the weight given by experts in religions of India. Of the lists of the religions of India that have been drawn up by experts, the vast majority of these, and the most authoritative ones, do not list Ayyavazhi. --BostonMA 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In your POV what is "authoritative ones"? 'University of Madras' one of the three oldest in India or Universities views generally is not in (your) the circle of authority? - Paul 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Does your book even list the religions of India? If so, what religions does it list? If it does give a list of religions of India, and I don't mean merely mention various religions in separate places, then I would consider it to be one of the views of experts on the religions of India. However, we don't give weight according to what one expert might say, but give weight according to the weight found among all experts in the field of interest. --BostonMA 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I even presented the conclusion of the book. Then what more to do? Then the LMS (the largest and the first protestant missionary) Reports. Then a couple of historian views (cited in the Ayyavazhi article. What more? Still Iam telling all are mentioned on the factual existence of Ayyavazhi.

If a person with a doctorate from some university publish a book out side the university then it could be taken as one expert view. But since it was an university publications it has to pass a series of experts rewiews from several universities before getting accredited. Definitely, you know all these. Then what credit do you earn by hearing these things from me as mere repeatations? Friend, pls Ustand. Thank You. - Paul 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, we are not debating the factual existence of Ayyavazhi. We are discussing the notability of Ayyavazhi. So please stop repeating your arguments about the existence of Ayyavazhi. The census of India reports state that when individuals have been asked to identify their religion, they have given something close to 1500 different answers. An overview article on India should not contain a list of 1500 different beliefs. We must limit our list to the most notable and describe the remaining beliefs as "others". Which beliefs are the most notable? We decide that by looking at the reputable sources. All of the reputable sources, and not merely a single book. It is not even clear to me that that the single book upon which you place so much weight even lists the most notable religions of India. If so, the book even if completely factual, would not do us any good for determining which beliefs should be in the list of religions in the India article. Sincerely, --BostonMA 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi was not individually created as something noted by you from the census reports. Then the notability 8000 worship centers from one book, thousands of worship centers from another, and as thousands across the nation from another book; All are university papers which are cited is the most valid third party sources. Then the LMS. Nothing to tell more on their case of Notability. Then a set of historian views. My question is simple. Aren't all these people experts on your view?

Ayyavazhi is definitely notable than zorosatrians and few thousand jews. Midst, inspite of all thease valid third party citations, I don't understand on what ground these set of users here in wikipedia are assuming as being neutral, acting aginst something merely because of the reason of lack of official accredition. It is something to be wondered!

I'd never seen a three-eyed person; But its existence is proved by valid citations by some one. Iam going on arguing it never exists, merely because I'd never seen it!!! It's like so the things are going here. - _Д |Ж|_Д 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

somanathapura edited

Hi, I edited this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Somanathapura

with stuff from this link http://temples.south-india-tour-package.com/karnataka-temples/somnathpur-temple.html

Please let me know if its ok, or whether it violates any copyright, and how do we put in the same information without violating copyright?

Thanks, user:Comman.man.wiki

Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for action

Hello, I understand that you are tired and frustrated at dealing with Paul but wikipedia needs you to take his case to whatever the next step is. Before I make my argument for why you need to do this, please read the following message that our dear friend left on Darcy's talk page after he was banned for 3RRR:
"Sir you blocked me for 24 hrs as violating 3rr. Please see does the 4 reverts comes within 24 hrs . The fourth revert is made after 10 minutes after the duration exceeded. The guideline says "An editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24 hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing." Then on what conscience you blocked me. - Д|Ж|Д 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"
Basically, he waited till 24 hours were up and then sneaked in his now infamous pov. However, his message tells us two things:
i) We are facing someone far far far more patient and determined than us.
ii) He is able to research the rules and try and make them work for him.
In many ways, we already knew this as it fits his method of "discussion." Even after all of your and many, many other editors work (Venus/Parthi, Fowler, etc.) he has managed to sneak in the mention of a religion that many of us are not even sure is a religion (forget about significance) in dozens of articles. Yet, I am willing to bet that 90% of the Indians you will ask on wikipedia (including ones from Tamil Nadu) would have never heard of this religion. It is almost like the religion is being invented on Misplaced Pages. This is wrong and it must be stopped. You are the ideal choice to lead the "cleansing" as you not only have the experience needed on this matters but also have dealt with him often enough. I hope you agree!--Blacksun 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you agreed! I will help in whatever way I can. --Blacksun 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I have actually not had that much direct interaction with him but have seen what many others have said and done. After following your discussion with him, I could not think of one thing I could have said that would make him understand. Similarly, I have seen few other respected editors waste lot of time on the matter too. Basically, I have more of an overview of what has been happening and it has become clear to me that we need something more official. I will try and find out all the people he has had conflicts with and send you links sometime tomorrow night (Europe timezone). --Blacksun 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Parthi beat me to it. Please look for his/her post at my talk page regarding Paul's edits. I will try and make a list of articles in en Misplaced Pages where he has been prolific.--Blacksun 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument usually put forward by Paul Raj/Vaikunda Raja goes something like this: '1.Ayyavazhi is a religion. See the couple of University papers. 2. It is notable. See the news reports of local holidays declared by the Tamil Nadu Government. 3. It is a separate religion because the founder/prophet (Vaikunda sami) said so, eventhough most of the followers consider themselves no different from Hindus.' Trying to make him understand the notion of undue weight is a futile exercise. It is next to impossible to find an independent source for the existance of this religion, as 99% of the hits are from Misplaced Pages or one of its numerous mirrors. The Hindu, the most respected broadsheet from Tamil Nadu, does not have any mention of this religion : , , , - Parthi 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parthi, You noted 'impossible to find an independent source' relaed to Ayyavazhi. Are you telling the university papers are dependent to Ayyavazhi? Then the online sources. It was really too bad compared to offline, related to Ayyavazhi. But offline sources are also valid. - _Д =|Θ|=_Д _Paul| 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Offer of advice

I'm a little scared off by your immediate statement that you think your advice might be taken as criticism. I certainly have had plenty of that, and little recognition of the work I've done to make things right. However, if it's constructive criticism, I'd welcome it, of course. At least you have occasionally supported a point or two that I've made when you thought I had a valid one. But please don't take offense if it turns out I disagree with your criticism; I promise to be respectful of your opinion nonetheless. Rosencomet 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a mixed bag. 1. I don't think I can stop posting on the arbcom case, since there seems to be no one to defend me anymore who hasn't been blocked or scared away, and one arbitrator seems to already have decided to ban me indefinitely. 2. The only edits I've made for a while to Starwood have been to reduce the lists (and keep the column lengths even). If no one tries to vandalize it with mentions of Satanism or something, I don't have any plans to do anything else for now. 3. As for Mattisse, I know you feel a need to be her protector for some reason. I have said before and I'll say again; if she stops trying to make trouble for me, I'm happy to leave her past behavior in the past. But she keeps weighing in on other talk pages with fresh encouragement to people to act against me. 4. As to my "allies" as you put it, I don't have anything to say anymore about all this checkuser and sockpuppet stuff; it's gone beyond my ability to even follow the conversation from a technical standpoint. 5. You'll have to explain why you think it's a good idea for me not to defend myself. Are YOU going to defend me? When I see misrepresentations of what happened posted there, if I don't object, am I not sunk?

As to editing something else, I'm not sure what other fields I have expertise in enough to contribute. I didn't get into this because I love to edit; I wanted to write articles about people and things I knew about that weren't already there, and improve ones that are there. I want to contribute both to my community AND to Misplaced Pages. In most of my other interests, there are already people who know more than I do editing those articles. And I certainly don't want to become one of these bastards who seem to think that tearing apart other people's work is the same as a creative act. Rosencomet 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, I've started a RfC Talk:India#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_new_material_to_the_India_page_history_section. Any comments and feedback, at your convenience, will be welcome! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yer Barnstar

I'd totally forgotten I'd given it to you. I saw you had an awards page so I just snuck it in there. Glad you liked it. ;-) --Pigman 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Only few days have passed

and Ayyavazhi continues to increase in popularity on Misplaced Pages.. On Eastern Philosophy page, Paul has moved it to top of the list and justified it based on alphabetical listing. On Ayyavazhi page it sounds more and more like it is a brand new religion and I am sure in few years Hinduism will be reflected as a sect of Ayyavazhi. He has added a paragraph as big as Jainism and Buddhism on Dharmic Religion article for Ayyavazhi. Ditto for Eastern Religions where he distinguishes it from Hinduism even more and no doubt will cite that to change other articles in future. I hope you are working on the RFC. --Blacksun 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have started going through the citations on AV talk page and asked Paul to comment. --Blacksun 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you telling that article is not in alphabetical order? Also why you are telling this. You've completely deleted Ayyavazhi contents from there. In Dharmic religion article one six to seven most important lines are included regarding Ayyavazhi, with each and every lines cited. - _Д=|Θ|=_Д _Paul| 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Filing a complaint against Asian2duracell

I am sending you this message in regards to a report I am filing against Asian2duracell to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. He has been found guilty of racial intollerance, name calling, trolling, sock puppetry, and vandalism. All other methods of conflict resolution have been tried and failed. Please let me know that you are aware of this request and if you would like to participate in this. Regards. Wiki Raja 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)