User:Bakasuprman/Archive2

Statement
I see that those who cheat the system, stalk contribs, and act in bad faith go unpunished while users that contribute are persecuted for their views. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Archive made above page was 30kb

Correspondence with Blnguyen
hi there Bakasuprman. I've replied to a whole bunch of Indian related stuff that concerns you, BhaiSaab and HolyWarrior on my talk page. you may want to have a look there, as it seems convenient to keep 3-4 way converstations in one place. Also BhaiSaab has given me some diffs which you may want to comment on, I'm between university briefings and seminars so I'll look at the diffs and your possible response in a couple of hours. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Holywarrior is a venom-spitter all around lol. He doesn't need me to have a punching bag, BhaiSaab on the other hand, doesn't contribute to articles and sneakily gets his enemies blocked.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I would if you stopped trying to get me blocked for dubious reasons. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PS:Dubious Reasons, and see WP:NPA,WP:AGF again.Its informal BTW. Holy | Warrior 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect the opinion of CONTRIBUTING editors not people on Wikipedia who serve no purpose but to get me blocked.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakuntala Devi
Hi, I know you seem to be busy with more important things at the moment, but would you mind clearing up this matter? I replied to your comment on my talk page and notified you, but perhaps you missed it. Thanks, Shreevatsa 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaks for remininding me, I replied on your talk page.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Countering systemic bias in Hindu-related articles
Hi, I'm setting up this project as a child project of WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. Will you be a part of this, per your "fundy list" discussions? --Babub→ Talk 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfC
Hi - this RfC is incomplete and improperly setup, and will be deleted after 48hrs if there is no prior evidence for dispute resolution provided. Rama's arrow 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You stated that you respect my views. So permit me to advise you to preserve self-control, no matter how many people are offensive, pushy or arrogant POV warriors. Such people will at one point or another be flushed out of the system. If you control your passions and uphold Wikipedia policies, you will earn respect and appreciation. Its about building an encyclopedia, a collection of knowledge and not proving/disproving different political and religious ideas. So don't be upset or angered if other people don't understand this. Rama's arrow  21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll try, its just that with Netaji gone, people are harrassing those of us who see the positives of Hindutva and don't cheat the system. Netaji makes a lot of noise and doesn't go down without a fight while the rest of us have not learned the ins and outs of all the WP: stuff. Bakaman Bakatalk 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi
Hi, thanks for your query re Ayyavazhi in my talk page. However I know next to nothing regarding these pages. My only contribution is to keep them NPOV. If you want to insert your query in the Ayyavazhi talk page, I'm sure some one will oblige. - Parthi 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ishwar Chandra Gupta and Sangad Prabhakar
Thanks for taking the initiative in expanding the first one and starting the second article. Keep up the work. --Ragib 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Bakaman, please, please stop attacking other editors, . It accomplishes nothing useful, helping only to make Wikipedia a depressing place for all.Timothy Usher 03:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, his conspiracy is not a personal attack? Stop persecuting me for my MfD vote.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman seems to think everyone that says something negative about him is persecuting him. That's not so. BhaiSaab talk 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to the latest bunch of documents at my talk page.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Diffs
Provide some diffs. D-boy is right. Bhaisaab does NOT contribute, he merely excites controversy. Blnguyen and Dboy also believe the block was unwarranted. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Diffs for what? BhaiSaab talk 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Reply to your recent message:. --Bhadani 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

let it go
there's nothing to fight about anymore....--D-Boy 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did call him a wikistalker. I told you not to comment on people, but only on content. I have blocked you for three hours. When you return, do not make any more attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is unfair, I got blocked twice while BhaiSaab never gets blocked. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that I am being persecuted for my views. Bakaman Bakatalk  22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some comments on the page. Please restrict yourself to citing the diffs and appropriate policies. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Stuff


Looks like Timothy Usher just vandalized his talk page here[. ,

{unblock|Admin involved in a content dispute cannot block a differing POV. Read dispute summary below.}

'''His view & my view. Then user:BhaiSaab solicited a block from the admin who became hostile when confronted .'''

Bakaman Bakatalk 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Truce?
Re to your message: Hello! First, let me clarify that I'm not a sysOp. I've gone through all the diffs that you provided, and entire conversations on all the user pages. The nature of the articles you (people) are involved in are admittedly controversial. However that needn't mean that one should lose their cool. As far as I can see, there were mistakes (involving personal attacks, incivility and assumption of bad faith) on both sides. Also, ignorance of rules is not an excuse. As such, I would say that there is no point in deepening this debate any further. Instead, I would request the concerned parties to move out of the battleground, and involve yourself towards more constructive editing. Perhaps the whole incident might seem unfair to you. But why not call for a truce and continue editing, keeping in mind the points laid out at Staying cool when the editing gets hot?-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Have fun! -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Can't We Be Friends?
* Baka wa shinanakya naoranai. * Literally: Unless an idiot dies, he won't be cured. * Meaning: Only death will cure a fool. / Stupid is forever.

BAKA is forever. Dont be anti-baka. MrTrubak 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Truebakasan wa baka desu - Bakaman Bakatalk 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol too bad the real Bakasan (his username was like ---suke) was dumb enough to violate WP:AN and vandalized the Baka page. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

O wait he was on Uncyclopedia and got blocked. How baka.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision
Dear Bakaman,

I saw that you've been contributing to 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision, which is great. However, I noticed that your edit summary seems not to conform with the proposal I laid out:
 * "wow the first thing they do is turn this into a cesspool of anti-Hindutva POV"

One of the guidelines I proposed says:
 * "2. Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is."

Could I please suggest that you review Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence.

I hope this helps, and thank you for contributing your knowledge and expertise to the revision of this article.

BCorr | Брайен 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "zealot" simply means "one who is overzealous", but it can be taken the wrong way, as you pointed out. Perhaps "fervent" would be a better adjective to describe them. BhaiSaab talk 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should leave the Babri Mosque out altogether for now, and leave it at the train burning article. What do you think? BhaiSaab talk 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also try to use English words when possible; readers may not be familiar with commonly used words in India like "mandir" or "puja." BhaiSaab talk 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to try Hindu temple or Hindu religious ritual . It will show the English translations while linking to the Hindi words. See The_perfect_article where it states
 * "is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."
 * Also, may I ask why you removed the New York Times citations I used? BhaiSaab talk 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Although you may feel that "muslims have no justification for killing women/children" (and I would agree with you), it is no reason to delete relevant material from the Godhra Train Burning article. BhaiSaab talk 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That status of that temple is contentious. See Babri_Mosque. BhaiSaab talk 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't take a stance on the issue in that article - we could leave the issue at Babri Mosque and the temple articles. BhaiSaab talk 23:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a relaible source for this assertion? Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about The Times of India and PTI News Agency? BhaiSaab talk 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Baka, please comment on the above sources so I can know whether or not I should use them. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * please show me said articles. As for Indian newspapers, The Pioneer and The Indian express are good sources.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are all in archives and I don't have permission to reproduce them. Unfortunately, the Pioneer and The Indian Express are not in my archives. BhaiSaab talk 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if the said source is not able to be scrutinized by other users, then it shouldn't be up there. Like I found Celia Dugger by typing in a couple of phrases on google, but if things are archived then we don't have a transparent article. Then one side of a debate is controlling the flow of info, and representing it to fit their own needs.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to use your own resources to access archived news.
 * "Well if the said source is not able to be scrutinized by other users, then it shouldn't be up there." This is not a reason for me to abstain from using a source. BhaiSaab talk 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You think were going to sit back and take the chance of letting one person represent the facts with their POV on wiki, just because only they can access it. No. If anyone can edit wiki, then anyone should be able to view all sources.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "No. If anyone can edit wiki, then anyone should be able to view all sources." That is not the policy of Wikipedia. However, you should assume good faith of other editors to present sources accurately, unless you have proof of otherwise. BhaiSaab talk 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, I thought it was. Since you know the policy of wiki, prove that it isnt. Articles like the Godhra riots null the AGF rule, as there are two heated sides to the debate, both trying to get the upper hand.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mosque is a featured article. Many of the sources are books and also the Encyclopedia of Islam, not everyone has access to either. BhaiSaab talk 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes effort to access books but they are not unaccessible. The fact is that archived news should be able to be found on a web source, and taken from there istead of citing a source taht is practically unaccessible. Its for the benefit of the viewers.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You will have to cite Wikipedia policy or guidelines to enforce this. BhaiSaab talk 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sudama
No problem, Bak Raj2004 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks,mate
Nice to feel welcome,It will take me a few days to figure out the rules of engagement here,Thanks for the welcome

--A1trips 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Baka, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. Thanks for your support :) --jam  es (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel
Pls email me if you want to know more about him.Bharatveer 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Disdain for Hindus?
Hindutva, yes. Hinduism, no. After all, I'm a Buddhist, and Buddhism could be considered a Hindu sect. Hinduism is not Hindutva. Zora 07:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your post to my talk page
Dear Bakaman, I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner to uour note about Netaji. I think that now that things have started it would be hard to stop the editing, but I will look into extending the editing period for a few more days. Thanks again for your work on the article. BCorr | Брайен 12:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Marad
Well, riots and communal violence related articles arent exactly to my taste, but I'll certainly help out. And you are right - the sources given right now are POV. Its better to rely on newspaper reports. Btw, your wikibreak dosent seem to have lasted long...-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph


 * Yeah, I know, WikiAddiction?Bakaman Bakatalk 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep if Sourced
Thanks for that on the Shadowclan Deletion page. Please take a look at the deletion page at the sources ive provided and lemme know if you think that is suffucient source material to make Shadowclan notable. Bagginator 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Rmev innapropriate tags by bhaiSaab. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

These are unwarranted. Tell Timothy Usher to not remove warnings.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see this edit, as I've already pointed out. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'vehad a word to Yeditor. Pls refrain from handing oput vandalism tags also. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

BhaiSaab and Baka, please stop handing out inappropriate vandalism warnings and the like. You are established editors, please refrain from giving one another robot warnings and take the time to write each other a proper sentence explaining your concerns. You've been debating well on the article talk pages over the last three days, please don't spoil it. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, please stop leaving specious vandalism warning templates on my talk page characterizing the removal of previous equally specious vandalism warnings as vandalism.Timothy Usher 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Specious. The word rolls off my tongue. All right, I will also remove any and all "specious" awrning templates on my page ever put up by yourself, BhaiSaab, Tom harrison, and holywarrior. After all I have the precedent to do so. Thanks for the precedentBakaman Bakatalk 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, the "vandalism" was just me removing another unwarranted vandalism warning. If you've something specific to discuss, I'm all ears.Timothy Usher 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed the warning template because I made a request on your talk page. Since you removed my request and the subsequent warnings, that set a precedent for me. Nothing specific needs to be discussed, but in the immortal words of Blnguyen "it may not be the best idea to complain too much in case you do not want others to complain about yourself." I realized there is no need to place vandalism/personal attack templates on your page, when I can remove them from mine.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have been blocked for 15 mins for continually sticking unnecessary tags to one another's pages. As I said earlier, as serious contributors, please take the courtesy to spend 2m writing a couple of sentences stating your concerns. And don't remove Tom's notice, that was real. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)