User talk:Bhimaji

We sue you we sue Wikipedia we sue WizardofWar for LIES LIES. MDSI has now France lawsuits against Wizard, X, Bhimaji, Kirkpatrick and RONZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanclauduc (talk • contribs)

Praise
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for being reasonable. Its far too often the case with COI editors that they get unreasonable, uncivil and even a bit manic in their arguments and editing. You have done great in remaining civil and reasonable, made honest efforts to improve the MDSA article, avoid personal attacks and be completely honest about your affiliations. Even though I may not nessisarily agree with your assertation of notability, I do think you deserve praise for your attitude and efforts. Russeasby 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on improving my edits

 * "Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

I've been working on understanding Wikipedia policies and have been trying to ensure that any edits I do have been both fully COI-disclosed and properly NPOV. I've also talked to all the MDSA people that have been doing edits. I'm not the boss so I can't order them, but I thought that there was good improvement.

Obviously, from your comments, I see that you are still concerned about some of the edits by myself or my co-workers. Do you think you could make some suggestions or identify article edits you feel are inappropriate?

Thanks. Bhimaji 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bhimaji. Your efforts are much appreciated. I have one major concern and it is related to WP:COI. If we read through the policy we'd find the following:


 * So that is my main concern and i am talking about all editors in direct relation w/ the subjects on hand. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of 76.109.17.236
Please look more carefully at the logs and edit history. The refactored comment was one that this person posted, but when connected to the wrong network. He changed the posting IP because he wanted to avoid confusion. If you look here:  you can see that he has signed his comments with his primary IP when he's been using his other IP address. I've suggested to him that he would be better off registering, but I can't force him to.

Given that the offense happened 11 days ago, I'm surprised that the block is happening now, and is for 73 hours, as opposed to the block of 31 hours for User_talk:83.206.63.250, who has written extremely distasteful and insulting material. Can you explain your reasoning? Bhimaji 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be unblocking him even if it would not make any sense. He is obliged to get registered now as all pages are locked. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to admit to mistakes. I must admit, however, that I am still confused about a 3 day block for an 11 day old transgression that was warned about and not repeated. Bhimaji 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is well explained at the talk pages Bhimaji. There's a new situation now and also because of two reasons: Everybody has been informed by the situation at the ANI lately and the revert happened today and not 3 days ago. The problem itself was the fact of removing a request (there weren't warning) from his talk page w/o explaining to folks why he's changed IP numbers. Co-editors have the right to know but instead of knowing they have been reverted. So that is the main reason. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  22:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this IP address has previously claimed to not be Jean Claude Ducasse: but in | this post he clearly says he is. I wonder if he'd be willing to PGP sign his posts :)
 * WP:SHUN. I believe the problem of IPs is sorted out now. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd XMonad AfD
Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:02 24 December 2007 (GMT)

Moving
Not really, but I have added a comment there about this mistake. Remember that we are in an open encyclopedia and we must be bold when edit. Thank you!--OsamaK 10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great view, let's talk with Wikipedians in the village pump. Can you write about this thing? My English is worse than writing there :P--OsamaK 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.
You might want to glance at my user page about my interests in New Thought. Low Sea (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RoHS and Swatch
Hello,

You recently undid my removal of the Swatch section in the RoHS article. Let me explain -- I did not remove it based on opinion, but rather fact. I obtained the EU paperwork officially filed by Swatch and the EU's consultant recommendation to deny Swatch's request for an exemption. So based on these documents and Dr. Fischer at DFR Solutions - I removed the section as being incorrect.

I am never eager to remove content, and I left an explanation with Aki, who originally added it. I have also sent an email to the UK Guardian which was cited as a reference, asking about their possible mistake.

Do you still think this content should remain? I'm willing to rewrite it and explain - perhaps that would be better than just deleting it, however if it's inaccurate or in dispute, it shouldn't be there in my opinion. Please see the RoHS discussion page for more detail. Prosecreator (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Juice Plus/NPOV
You wrote: RiR is claiming, ... the secondary sources that have written about Juice Plus have focused prominently on these issues Those statements are, in my opinion, consistent. If RiR's assertion is correct, then the article's POV is reasonable. Bhimaji (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) What the "other side" of the Juice Plus arguement continually brings up, only to have shot down and NEVER included in the article, is that there are many, dozens, if not more of "secondary sources" that have written about Juice Plus and favorably so. RIR continues to source MLMwatch which negatively talks about EVERY "MLM" marketing company, ignores that Juice Plus is not a traditional MLM but a franchise opportunity that only costs $50 to start and NO inventory is EVER required to be stocked by a distributor, you don't make ANY money for signing up a distributor aka BodyWise which charges $750 to sign up and the person "upline" gets $350 of that money. Leading doctors throughout the world recommend it to their patients, renown institutions have studied it and backed it. It amazes me that RIR is allowed to control the content and run the negative tone as he/she deems, and editors with much more history of other articles and neutrality stand by and let it happen. Why not call NSA, ask for Dr. Carlos Madera or Dr. Enita Brody (email me julai at juliahavey dot com for their number) and find out first hand from the company about some of the non-negative secondary sources, such as Isadore Rosenfeld, more perhaps even more importanly the "first sources" such as the people who conducted research--rather than Stephen Barrett and MLM and noname nutritionists from small town newspapers? This article really doesn't make Wiki look like the unimpeachable source that it was intended to be. Respectfully, Julia Havey

Question
I do not want to make any accusations too overtly so am being a bit cryptic let me know if I am being too cryptic. The editing pattern of two users on an article and talk page that you and I are both currently involved in seems suspiciously like sock puppetry to me. The newest account seems single purpose and both accounts start editing and end editing at the same time and seem a bit tag teamish. Second account was created right after discussion of "consensus" was brought forward and the statements of both accounts are being used as if they form a "consensus." It could also be meat puppetry I suppose. Or just total coincidence. I am just curious about whether you see the same pattern I do and what you think of it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, so far it is nothing really actionable one way or another just nice to have a reality check for ones paranoia sometimes :). Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the "amazing" not so scientific randi
His IP is French, so, yeah, I won't hold his English skills against him. His personality, and his intellectual abilities, however, are things that I will hold against him. Back on topic, though, it is a common mistake that people make. People fail to understand that finding out the cause of flummery is a field in and of itself. Knowing when you need to enlist the help of an expert, and knowing what the expert is actually able to do, instead of assuming that 'expert ~= god' - that is a skill that many people lack. I suspect that Randi knows more about most scientific fields than many experts know about scientific fields outside their expertise. Bhimaji (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So according to you, it's enough to only "suspect" his scientifc knowledge to make disappear any kind of information related to his educational background ?! I mean, is this the way wikipedia works ? you "suspect", how sure is that?! why didn't you even "wonder", that would have been a better reason for making disappear my contribution about his educational career don't you think ?! I can't believe guys like you run wikipedia like kings of the info.. simply pitious.

Tenses in Wireless Energy Transfer
As it was, the tenses were inconsistent -- most were in past tense but a few were in present tense, so I changed the latter to past tense. If you want to change all of them to present tense, feel free. As long as they're all consistent. -- Worrydream (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Talkback
Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Request help in countering vandalism on Sathya Sai Baba Page
Hi, Could you kindly look into the page on Sathya Sai Baba and help counter continuous blanking of content and vandalism on the page? White adept (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sai Baba
The discussions initially were on the sai baba talk page. However, they were carried over to a user talk page after the four editors involved saw the discussion on said talk page. I do agree that it isnt appropriate, and I am more than willing to have another call on them. However, I believe that the videos must remain off the page until the vote because Dilip rajeev/white_adept added the videos without a discussion on the talk page. In fact, he added some 40k bytes of information to the page (most of it high controversial and in need of discussion) in a very short period. It is my opinion that the videos should have not been left on the page to begin with, but any attempts to remove the info until discussion was almost always reverted by white_adept. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it you didnt read my or Radiantenergy's responses. Using the videos to push an agenda is against the rules. The article more than adequately covers the claims that the miracles are faked in text, so adding the videos serves no real purpose other than to push a POV, which the article already has. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what it means either lol. I assumed he calls me it because I have been somewhat of a discussion moderator, trying to reach equal grounds with the multiple editors of the page. Of course, it has no meaning on Wikipedia, but it doesn't bother me :P. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please share your perspective in this discussion:. Thank you :). Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red
Please lend your attention to the Julia Havey article. Rhode Island Red has done a hatchett job on the article already edited and approved by numerous editors. He says sources aren't able to be found confirming her two Oprah & Friends XM appearances, when they are clearly and easily found on Oprah's website!

he has a clear bias / vendetta against her because she edited the Juice Plus article YEARS ago. He edits science articles and Julia Havey? Wikipedia is not the forum for a personal fued or vendetta, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial in the opening paragraph of the SSB page
I'm really having a hard time understanding what the person is saying. S/He really isn't making sense to me, and my attempts to comprehend what he is saying have not worked. I'm going to leave the discussion to you, as I've gotten a big headache out of the discussion. Overall, though, I think you present a very good argument for leaving the word, and explaining your reasoning (which I happen to agree with :P) in a understandable way. Just thought I'd say good work! Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A delicious treat


Onopearls has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Question

 * Bhimaji, I noticed that you had removed this from the Sathya Sai Baba article - Why?
 * You had also removed this here - Why?.

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove this here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=321305577&oldid=321287312.
 * Especially the following statement "That reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sathya Sai Baba or his organisations"
 * The above statement is not an opinion its a fact. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is meant by 'confirm'? The BBC felt they had enough confirmation to make the allegations. Bhimaji (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously BBC did not confirm anything. If they had confirmed they wouldn't have allowed absurd statements such as 'Sathya Sai Baba is a Mafia Man' in their show.
 * They telecasted 'Alaya Rahm' allegations. During the real trial in 2006 'Alaya Rahm' who had made those allegation claims to BBC self dismissed his own case in the middle of the trial. Again it only proves that BBC just reported 'Alaya Rahm' allegations. They did not confirm or verify anything.
 * You stated that there was no investigation during the trial. If there were no investigation then why do you think the case was dismissed as 'with prejudice' meaning it cannot be filed again for the same claims? Otherwise the case should have closed 'With out Prejudice' meaning it can be filed again. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * of course there was no investigation during the trial. ~I am not a legal expert, so I cannot answer that question. Andries (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/User
Because you are an editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or a closely related one), I call your attention to discussion at Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)