User talk:IAF: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 30 July 2008

License tagging for Image:TD-1-Tax.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TD-1-Tax.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TD-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TD-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari problems

Hello, please read this. Thank you. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I see that you're intrested in Indian history and religion. If you take a look in hereyou'll see that we have a very active neo buddhist on our hands, who would like to malign Hinduism every chance he gets. Please vote accordingly here, I'll work on most of his articles to make them neutral and according to wikipedia policy as well. Best Regards. Freedom skies 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You struck out my request for a citation for the following statement: "Followers of the Jain and Sikh faiths are considered broader Hindus according to the social-fabric of India.", with the edit comment "There is no need of a citation for that fact". The reason I asked for a citation is that the statement would be considered controversial by some members of those faiths. Also the term "social-fabric" is a little vague in this context; a citation indicating where this term is used and to what degree the opinion stated in the sentence is a reflection of the debate on the subject is called for. Please specify why you think this is not a problem, or else reintroduce the cn tag. Thank you. Hornplease 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a citation. Come to India, and witness on your own. There is no need to provide a URL/citation for each and every reference as some facts are very well known (like Eiffel tower is in Paris). 'Social-Fabric' means relationships between various communities--the fabric is the same, but at various parts there are different designs.IAF

Thank you for your reply. However well-known the facts, I am afraid that when they are contested by some, as these facts will be, a citation is expected under WP:V. Otherwise anyone who disagrees with your view will be able to remove the statement without thinking twice. Hornplease 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm still waiting on a reply to this. Or should I assume that you agree, and a citation is needed? Thanks! Hornplease 07:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hornplease you are absolutely right. Jainism and Buddhism were never a part of Hinduism. Do come to India and ask any Jain or Buddhist. Its a fact. --Anishshah19 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only clerics say that. At Ganesh festival, navratri my famiity has had Jains worshipping at my home for may years. Turn on some Dharmic TV channels and you'll find Jain munis chanting on show and Sudhanshu, Asaram in other shows.

Actually nowadays there has been an acute identity crisis what with the court cases, and all.

Jainism and Buddhism have a liturgy that is in Sanskrit---which was originally not just used, but developed for composing the RV, AV, YV and the SV. Stuff like Moksha and rebirth occurs in the Vedanta first and then simply rephrased by the Buddha and Jain tirthankars later on. Forget Jains, even within Hinduism also there are many protestant groups like the Arya-Samajis (who don't worship idols or other gods & goddesses). Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Broadmindedness of Jains should not be taken otherwise. One of my Hindu friend regularly goes to Hajiali Dargha. Does it make Hinduism a Part of Islam. This would be a ridiculious conclusion, which unfortunately you are hell bent on making. I suggest you go thru the views of Amartya Sen also -

The second part of Amartya Sens interview to Arthur J Pais. You have argued in your new book against Samuel Huntington's definition of Indian civilization as a Hindu civilization. But many Indians think of the country as a Hindu country, in terms of religion and culture. Why do you call such thoughts politically combustive and descriptively flawed? Amartya Sen : "India has had a phenomenally rich and immensely diverse history, and any unifocal interpretation of that history in purely Hindu terms cannot but miss out a lot of India's traditions. Aside from religious differences, we have also had a long tradition of scepticism, yielding among other approaches agnosticism and even atheism. Indeed, going back all the way to the Rig Veda (circa 1500 BC), we can find in it the Song of Creation, which questions the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and perhaps even the existence of any entity like God. Buddhism and Jainism too posed quite a few challenges to Hinduism, and while Jainism survives today, Buddhism -- it is good to remember this -- was the dominant religion in India for around a thousand years. Among other important features, Buddha maintained an agnostic position, and saw the question of God to be not only hard to resolve but also as being quite unnecessary to resolve for moral thinking. It is often not recognised that Buddhism is the only world religion that does not invoke God for its theory of good behaviour. India has always had room for different religions, and apart from indigenous development of non-Hindu religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism), the country has been tolerant and welcoming to people from different religions immigrating to India. Jews arrived in India from the first century, Christians from the fourth century, followed by Parsis from Persia in the seventh century, and Muslim Arab traders in the eighth. Indian culture has benefited greatly from the diversity that the various religions have produced. Over the last two decades, the idea that Indian civilization is a Hindu civilization has gained some ground. It has also led to considerable political intolerance, playing up Hindu-Muslim conflicts rather than their constructive interactions. This has also gone with some targeting of minority groups, for example in Mumbai in the early 1990s and in Gujarat in 2002. That is why I think that to understand India as a Hindu country is not only a big descriptive mistake, it is also politically nasty. It is used to ignite the ferocity of an exclusive and allegedly dominant identity of the Hindus, and to undermine the common identity that all Indians can share." Those interested may read the rest of the article at the following link :- http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/aug/21inter.htm --Anishshah19 06:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

You may want to know that your signature, instead of linking to YOUR userpage links to the user page of a banned user. After I post this comment, you can see the HTML code for signature's that work. You should change all the "Bakasuprman" and "Bakaman" to "IAF" and play around with the bold, and color things.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPKF

If you have an issue with the IPKF article, especially the human rights violation section, please provide references that can suggest that these are not true. However, please do not delete the section, as the claims themselves have been referenced to reputable publications. Such actions are considered vandalism. Rueben lys 13:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do want to include LTTE propaganda ?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAF (talk).

It is not propaganda at all.There are reputable publications that have documented the claims that have been made in the article.If you wish to provide an opposing view point,please provide a verifiable account that says so. Your post makes it clear that you are editing (deleting) with a POV issue,which makes it count as vandalism. You are welcome to forth your views, but please do not delete those of others, especially when these are verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not the place to settle disputes, no matter how strongly you feel about it. It is a place for facts. Hope you will contribute with your views which will be just as much appreciated.Rueben lys 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deleting well-sourced information from an article without consensus is considered vandalism and you may be blocked for doing so. Please read WP:NPOV before making any further edits. Thanks. --Yamla 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAF to rueben_lys and reply

Your post makes it clear that you want to add anti-IPKF POV into the IPKF article (no matter how "well" sourced). I can't include jehadi philosophy and the sorrow-laden story of Osama bin Laden into the 9/11 article can I ?

All deletion is not vandalism (no matter how well referenced), especially if it is done to remove off-topic matter and PoV like yours. However, wanton stuffing of unrelated matter like you have done can be counted as vandalism. Indian Air Force (IAF)

My post does not make clear anything because I am asking you not to delete sections of the article that does not agree with your POV. Deletion of well referenced facts for the purpose of preventing it from coming into the reader's view (as you're trying to do) is vandalism. And it is not for you to decide what philosophy gets included because you do not own the article.

Please think, your edits can be compared to somebody trying to edit US army human rights abuse in Iraq. No matter how much it has been proven or not, these are things for the reader to judge based on how verfiable they are. If you feel these are overtly POV, add the Neutrality disputed Tag (:{{NPOV}}). Otherwise you are making bad faith edits. The allegations of Human rights abuse by the IPKF are not wanton or off-topic as you allege, they are one of the many parts of the break down of the Indo-Srilankan-LTTE accord. Also, you may have come under the impression that I am promoting an anti-IPKF, or anti-India POV, but I have not made any major contributions to the IPKF page, so you are chatting rubbish there. I have started and made significant contributions to Operation Poomalai and The Jaffna University Helidrop, which were operations mounted by the Indian Air Force, and the IPKF respectively, with the intentions of putting forth both a balanced factual description of the Indian forces in Srilanka (who I am pretty proud of, being Indian myself) . I don't know a lot about the IPKF, but I haven't made any bad faith or POV edits because I also respect those from both sides who died during the Indian intervention believeing that they died for the right cause (even the Tamil Tigers, who fought the IPKF thinking India was going to occupy their land). Also, I am sure you will see from my contributions, that I have started a lot of articles on the Indian armed forces (Especially those during the 1971 War), but with a factual description in mind and not POVs, so please do not accuse me of pushing an anti-India POV. Hope you will understand my point. Rueben lys 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Lastly,[reply]

I have to butt in into your discussion - I have changed the title of the section to "Alleged". Of the sources given, I find only the Indian Express source credible enough. And even that talks about the 'Massacre' being hte result of an earlier ambush by the LTTE on IPKF. The Tamilnet source is not a neutral source as it is a site heavily biased in favour of the LTTE. A more balanced view of the events can be found on this site. http://www.uthr.org/ - Please check it out jaiiaf 15:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jai, and for the last time IAF, I have not made any contribution to this effing article, so I can't be introducing any PoVs by Common Sense!!!, so stop ranting about my PoV, I don't have a PoV!!! if I did, it would be the same as yours!!! And no!!!, massacres of Tamils by the Sinala are not relevant!!! but the allegations of massacres by the IPKF are issues that concerns the IPKF and the Indian intervention in Srilanka. Look at the edit that jaiiaf has done, that's how you introduce NPOV, not by blanket deletion of anything that doesn't make you happy. I introduced an NPOV tag sometime ago, and somebody removed it. But the wayforward is not deletion, but to say that the facts and POVs are disputed!!!. Otherwise it will keep getting reverted because people automatically assume you're making bad faith edits!!! And stop accusing me of introducing POV when I haven't written anything in it, makes you look like school kid arguing in playground!!!.Rueben lys 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben, If I may add, a closer look reveals that even the "Asian Tribune" is not a neutral source. So out of the 'three' massacres - only the Indian Express report has some scope. And it does not take into account that the patrol was ambushed and six Sikh soldiers lost their lives. You can query the Indian Army Official site for Op Pawan and filter the dates to 2 August 89 for the names. The main problem with the IPKF article is there is very little meat about the IPKF operations. One can write pages and pages on it but the fighting merely covered by two paras. I suggest rather than fighting over the atrocities, we focus on building the operations part of it. jaiiaf 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that count jai, and certainly the article on IPKF should say more about the organisation and operations. I have found some stuff in bharat-rakshak and other sites which can be used. But just deleting the disputed section outright suggest bad faith edits and are always reverted, which what's been happening here. Also, the way forward is to add NPOV tags and to edit the article towards NPOV instead of outright deletion as IAF has done. I think the problem is IAF assumed I have a PoV to promote, which I don't. Hope that clears things out IAF.Rueben lys 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not a moronic idiot, I would carry on this conversation, but as is blatantly clear, you not only lack intelligence even of a fish, but you are also a loud mouthed brainless twit. Reversion is not counted as contribution, and I reverted your edits for the reasons I have tried through all of the above paras to hammer into your matterless hollow brain. Your edits made it look like you were making bad faith edits (which I now do actually do think you are). To make an article NPOV, you are supposed to include both sides of the story. So if the LTTE alleges something, you say that the LTTE alleges this, instead of blanking it out. You, me, LTTE,the IPKF or even President Bush does not own the article, so there can't be any question of allowing LTTEs view point. If you think that's propaganda, go and say so in the IPKF page. But as a combatant, the LTTE is allowed to have it's view point, you are welcome to add LTTE atrocities against the IPKF. As I said before, the allegations of atrocities were real allegations and one of the key reasons why the Indo-Srilankan accord broke down. But of course, you don't listen to rhyme or reason, and have come to the moronic conclusion that I have some kinda anti-IPKF POV. So instead of helping any of us guys (eg, me or jaiiaf) who are actually writing about the IPKFs military roles and operations, you can only slag us off and try to pretend you know so much about this topic, which obviously are totally ignirant about. I do not wish to carry on this conversation, it only makes me sad that people like proudly trumpet your Indianness and then act like complete idiots. Good luck with your edits.15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above un-signed comments are of Rueben lys.

Well don't know why so much of anguish? This will be less helpful and more problem inviting. Stay cool. swadhyayee 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I see no harm in placing of Ayyavazhi in the article. Ayyavazhi is a dharmic faith and like paths within Hinduism (consider Vedanta) it can be described as a school with emphasised features and hence deserves a mention.

If someone was to place Vedanta as a dharmic school I would'nt object to it. Hinduism has several such schools and it only mentions the distinct nature of the faith within Hinduism.

My idea, no harm in letting it stay. It does'nt mean that Ayyavazhi is seperate, it just means that it is a Dharmic faith, within or outside of Hinduism is described in the Ayyavazhi article. In the Dharmic religions article, all faiths of dharmic origin, within or outside Hinduism deserve a mention.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a citation on the Dharmic religions page, it has the constituion of India accepting them as Hindus. Please do take a look at the article. Relax, the more people know about Ayyavazhi the more they'll know the truth.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism

Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion

Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements

Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus

Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories

Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes

For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 06:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIT

IAF, we have two articles. One refers to historical and polemical issues; one refers to actual theories of Indo-Aryan migrations/invasions. The latter is called Indo-Aryan migration. The point is that "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a phrase used almost exclusively by polemicists in the context of modern Indian nationalist and anti-Imperialist culture. Historians and linguists do not typically use this term in a scholarly context, so the discussion of the term is closely tied to political polemics - using the word "political" in a broad sense. I'm not really bothered which version of the intro is used, but a revert war just gets in the way of other improvements that might be made. A compromise version might be desirable. Please discuss on the Talk page. Paul B 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your edits to Hinduism being reverted.

I see your edits to Hinduism being reverted. You have facts, could you not put your proposed inclusions on talk page. The article is almost complete, is facing size problem and being reviewed for improving. Your co-operation to discuss your proposals would be helpful. Thanks and Good Luck. swadhyayee 01:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tusi khush raho, Papaji.

Pl. check Hinduism and it's talk page. swadhyayee 10:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papaji, Mennu doubt hai

Papaji, Mennu doubt hai, tusi "Indian Air Force" naa rakh shakte ho ya nahin? Pl. bear with me, I am bringing it to the attn. of Administrator's board as I do not want you to stop using it once your contributions increase.

swadhyayee 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With due apology, for your information.

User:IAF, without bad intentions is using Indian Air Force as his user name. I am not aware of the policy, I request that due notice be given to him and the word "Indian Air Force" be removed from everywhere if the usage is contrary to the policy. swadhyayee 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard"

Of course I am an admin, but I want to wait and see first if IAF took the changes that I suggested. If he didn't, it would be pointless to change them if I know more are showing up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that he will be allowed to use Indian Air Force as his signature if he does not stop and remove earlier signatures? And I couldn't understand your view that there are many air force organisations that go by "IAF". Indian Air Force is only one organisation of Indian Govt. Defence. swadhyayee 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what is more likely is that he will be blocked from editing if he refuses to change his signature, but at least until the matter is disposed there is no special urgency in replacing the old signatures. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I told this user already on how he can change his signature. He has to go to the preferences. having IAF as a username is fine, but the Indian Air Force name in his signature has to go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you kindly?

Many thanks for stopping use of "Indian Air Force" from your signature. Your actions are of value to me. I do not know, whether you were able to remove these words from your past signatures or not.

Will you kindly add date and time in your comments? I think, this you can do by selecting sign "~" four times one after another without leaving space in between. You will find tool to select this sign on right hand side below end of this box. swadhyayee 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic Religions

Hello IAF, in regards to the Dharmic Religions article and Ayyavazhi my thoughts are as follows:

Ayyavazhi is obviously being actively promoted in Wikipedia (which I don't object to as long as it's within reason). I've seen links posted to the main Ayyavazhi page all over Wikipedia, whereas in religious based research outside of Wikipedia I've never even heard the name. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Talk:India.2FAyyavazhi and the main Talk:India/Ayyavazhi which are relevant in this instance.
In the Dharmic religions article I don't personally believe the Ayyavazhi organisation warrants a whole seperate section alongside other much larger religious organisations such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism. Both the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Brahma Kumaris for example do not personally claim to be part of Hinduism, and are much larger in influence and size than Ayyavazhi (although they still are much smaller than the larger groups such as Sikhism etc...). For example on Google Ayyavazhi gets only 41,000 hits, compared to 217,000 hits for the BK's and 549,000 for ISKCON These are just two examples! (Sikhism gives 1,800,000 hits) - On the Adherents website I cannot find Ayyavazhi mentioned at all (have done a Google site search). Thus I cannot see a strong argument to single out Ayyavazhi exclusively in the way in which they currently are. Especially as they follow 'dharmic' philosophies at least based some part on the Dharmic tradition of Hinduism.

Hoping to be of help. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thnkx Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol-worship

Hi IAF. (The following is mostly copied from the Talk:Paganism page.) The recent addition of "Idol-worship" to the Paganism article is a bit problematic. Because the term is unfortunately negatively weighted by the Judeo-Christian Bible interpretation in Western society, I don't really think it's appropriate or accurately descriptive. I believe this is a translation problem. I would recommend using the more accurate murti worship or perhaps "icon-worship" or "deity-worship" which I believe would be more representative of the meaning being sought after here. I certainly think using the word murti somewhere in the article would be a good idea. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am happy that you are not offended. But you are only one of many followers of the Dharmic religions and philosophies. There are many others who are offended. AliaGemma 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Sanskit

Please check before making unsourced edits like this. Rokus01 10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this edit refers to a redundancy created by yourself. I will denounce this in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence Rokus01 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

See Sanskrit#Interactions_with_Sino-Tibetan_languages the citation for this is the book "Old Javanese – English Dictionary" by P.J. Zoetmulder. I dont know publisher or anything so perhaps you can find out the other info. also see kawi.Baka man 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on Sanskrit

Before you edit you have to mind the opinion of others. Again you reverted, without minding the correction of Athaenara and neglecting the third opinion administrated by bibliomaniac15. Sorry, but this makes me sich and tired. I will take care your disruptive reverting behaviour will be reported. Rokus01 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to Dharmic religion

Please be more careful in reverting. You reverted a sourced section linking to the Supreme Court case discussed. You also reverted an addition the Jain section saying in your edit summary: "Jainism does NOT predate the Vedas. It is confirmed." The section in question states: "Jains believe that Jainism is a religion predating the Vedas." Whether or not the Jains predate the Vedas, the Jains believe their religion does and it is clearly stated as their POV, not a fact. Thank you. Vassyana 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dharmic religion. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. You've already made three reverts. Please be cautious. I will not revert any further changes you may make today to comply with the policy myself. Please discuss the issue on the talk page, where I replied to your post. Vassyana 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look around the many political and religious pages on Wikipedia. It is perfectly appropriate to mention what a group believes, even if that belief is erroneous, provided it is clear that it is a belief of that group. Also, in the future, please do not add comments to user pages. The editor's talk page is the appropriate place for comments and questions for that user.Vassyana 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus was a year ago may have some bearing, but it does not set anything in stone. First, consensus can change. Second, the decision did not exist a year ago. Third, I was simply providing a fair warning that you had reached the revert threshold. Take care. Vassyana 19:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your complaint

Legalese 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Dear IAF, Jossi holds that we should not discuss on his page. Hence, it comes here. Mr. Jossi, please have a look at this talk-page. An editor called Legalese has opened 2 entire sections that are deicated solely for my personal criticism, instead of having anything even slightly to do with the article itself. The sections are, "Be Civil IAF", and "On IAF's response to replying 10 times". I think this guy deserves at least a warning.[reply]

- The "civility" that he professes, pertains to not making a Contempt of Court. - - Also, for every edit that I have made in the main article, I have provided a rationale on the talk page. Indian_Air_Force(IAF) - - Legalese 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)At the outset, I seek an apology if using some "name" in a sub-title is against wiki ethics or standards. (I confess, my ignorance if there exists any rule against it). - - But, I do not accede to the allegation levelled by IAF in as much as he holds that the 2 sections are "solely for (his) personal criticism". You may please see the entire conversation taking place on that page, and also please note that while I tried to bring to the attention of the editor in question, several notable scholars' opinion, not just being indifferent to them, the editor continues to keep the article in question only as per his own point of view. - - Furthermore, if you see what I actually wanted to point out was the mere fact that the kind of words, the editor in question used, were amounting to an offence of "Contempt" of the Apex Court of a Country. - - If the user in question finds them to be personal attacks, then he is failing to appreciate the whole spirit of all of my submissions made on that page. - - In any case, I submit to you that I do not believe in the "word-play or war", and if the user in question holds them offending, I seek an UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY. - But at the same time, I stand firm on my point that the user in question is not being a good editor in deed or spirit, by the kind of changes the user is making to the article. It is highly objectionable. - - * I contend that in the first section, yes Legalese makes a valid point that he does majorly include points to support his edits also, but my assertion that the second section ("Be civil IAF") is meant solely for a personal attack. It merely has the cloak of redundant information i.e. which was already posted earlier by Legalese in another section, and its main aim (as the title itself suggests) is to lecture me about what he percieves is "civility". On this, Legalese definitely deserves a warning . - - Again, I may repeat that I have dealt with utmost consternation AND with due respect (while mentioning the Hon'ble SC) my opinion on the judgement which may qualify as Contempt of Court----something which Legalese has not and probably does not even bother to looking on the Talk-page. The purpose of repeatedly levelling baseless charges of Contempt of Court, despite my clarification on the same in the talk-page earlier is beyond my comprehension. - - The charge that I am not being a "good" editor can only be levelled as a matter of opinion only, (which I too can leve back at him) and not as a complaint because Legalese is NOT an admin, has no authority, has had no authority on wikipedia on matters related to the judgement of the quality of articles, and even final arbitration on what constitutes as "good editing" or "Objectionable behaviour". - - His lecture to me on civility (that too publicly on a talk-page and not on my user:page) is itself very appaling to me---who has been contributing to wikipedia since more than a year now. What is even more appaling is his assumption of a role as the Moral Guardian and as someone who discerns the quality of edits. For attempting to accuse me of AND impose the norms of "civility" and that too incongruous on a talk-page of an article and not personally on my own talk-page, Legalese deserves a warning. - - - Again, he talks of a noncoherent discussion on my part when it is apparent (by the date of edits) that he has taken the liberty to open section after section discussing either me, or my edits without replying where I had already given the reasons for my edits in another section. So who is being incoherent ? - - Besides, I never said that I find the "word-war" offending to me on part of Legalese. So an Unconditional Apology on my part does not arise at all. Indian_Air_Force(IAF) - - Legalese 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Dear Jossi, I am sorry for using so much of space on your talk page, as I do below. I am not too sure where am I am supposed to reply. Do please correct me if an admin's page is not the correct place. - - Response to IAF - 1. “Be Civil IAF” for personal attack? I pointed out, that the kind of language you are using “perceivably” for the judgment of a Court of law, is unsuited, and transgresses the “freedom of expression”. To this, you “clarified” that you intended to use it for some other editor’s arguments and not for the Court’s judgment. Though seemingly, your own original statement defeats such explanation (to quote you, you said Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement again and again to chew. I've trashed it already on this very talk page) because: - - a. “Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement” , the use of “garbage” refers to the jugdgment and not to anyone’s arguments. - - b. “. I've trashed it already on this very talk page” , the use of “it” refers to “the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement” which again is directly pointing to the judgment. - - c. the whole of your statement does not make reference to any user, but for the use of the verb “salvaging”, thus you say for the user that he or she "salvaged" the “garbage” (which your statement uses for) “Supreme Court’s Judgment”(my point “a” above), and you hold that you “trashed” the “garbage” (my point “b” above) again implies that you hold that you “trashed” the Supreme Court’s Judgment. - - In light of this, I still hold you committed a contempt of the Court, under Sec. 2 subsection (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, India (available for your reference at indiacode.nic.in). Even if you feel I intended to have a “personal attack” …so be it, (your feeling) for I still find it very important to point out a gross misuse of freedom of expression. - - 2. “Repeatedly Levelling baseless charges of Contempt”? It is only that section “Be Civil IAF” where I brought to your attention the fact that you need to be careful, where did I repeat it? But for now, where I had to “explain” it because ( I felt that) you did not understand it previously. - - I tried to show above, how the “charge” was not baseless. - - - 3. I never “complained” to anyone about your edits. You made the complain, and I merely put up my stance, not even a counter-complain. It is surely my opinion, but please keep in mind, as I already stated, I have concern only with your edits, and not with you. So, be it good or bad, is your edits, and not you. Hence, you would always remain a “ good editor” for I am in deep appreciation of everyone who contributes to Wiki, for I personally feel it is the most majestic (and largely well functioning) manifestation of the “freedom of expression”. (Though, a “good editor” like you, may have certain “ bad edits”, to which I pointed out). - - 4. Do I deserve a warning? I might or I might not, for I am unaware of the benchmarks ….as to what may attract a warning. But, as I said above, I still hold you as a “good editor”. And I point out certain bad edits, ...out of the billions on this earth, why should I even bother to have ill-will against one random being. If the supervisor may so find that I have committed a breach of any rules, I might be liable for a warning. However, let me again reinstate that in good faith, whatever I said, if it hurt you, or offended you, I withdraw and hold an apology. - - 5. Please explain: I still do not understand, of all things, why would you just DELETE the 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court, from the article. Isn’t that being really “unfair”, that you simply erase such an important piece of information only because it goes against how you want the article to be? - - The following is how you explain, why you deleted it: - “”Again before blatantly and base-lessly accusing me of deleting something simply because you say that I don't like it, I may point the finger back at you for never reading what I've commented earlier. I repeat, that is a judgement pertaining to a STATE, and not the Union of India. The Bal Patil judgement pertained to the Union of India (the case was Bal Patil vs. the Union of India) and it was therein that the SC made the observation that "Jainism is a sub-religion of Hinduism etc...." .”” - - But as I have already shown, you are neither aware nor trying to accept, the concept of implied overruling, or how the mere name of a case, does not limit its application to subjects. I detail below again, for your kind reference. - - 5.a You tried to insist that there is no “implied overruling” whereas, you were not even aware of what this legal concept is…and had I not mentioned that I am a student of law, you would perhaps have still insisted that “implied overruling” is how you define it to be (viz. in your words, “The SC's latest opinon is NOT an overruling implied, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned as it is in other cases. The judgement itself makes no mention of it anywhere as it always is in case of overrulings of previous judgements. It simply says that its an "interesting observation". That by itself is no implication of an overruling”) - - 5.b You tried to show that because the Bal patil judgment has “Union” in the name title, and the UP Shiksha judgment has “State”…the former applies to the Union, and the latter applies only to the “State”. This was a most inarticulate, and wholly illogical (also infra-legal, and incorrect per the established jurisprudence) explanation. I submitted to you how the “Supreme Court of India Rules” govern how a case is named, and illustrated how the case of "M.C. Mehta v. UT of Delhi", should apply, only to the territory of Delhi per your logic, BUT this is a Supreme Court Case , which governs the application of precautionary principle of Environmental Law THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. - - The above, that is 5.a and 5.b are illustrations, why I hold that you are not being FAIR. You will give an argument absolutely only to suit your stance(viz, the explanation of implied overruling and the explanation of “state” and “union” in the name title”, and try to explain it in such whimsical fashion, devoid of facts and evidence rather going against what are established principles(which I showed how you are being totally incorrect). Only because I revealed that I am a law student, you witheld and said “you will reply later”( you wrote on the talk page, “OK so you reveal only NOW, albeit "nonchalantly", that you are a student of Law. So I'll discuss the legal part later on”), if you were unaware, why did you try to give such explanations at all (on, your explanation of implied overruling and the explanation of “state” and “union” in the name title”), while you knew that you do not know how it really goes. - - 6. Objections to methodology: Apart from the above illustrations, on how you try to use anything and everything just to support your stance, I also do not understand how can such blanket statement be made at all…as you wrote "because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently" What do you know about these core ideas of Jainism, and Buddhism to make such a statement? What do you know about how Jainism and Buddhism developed, in such comprehensive way, that you hold that these ideas “did NOT develop independently” at all? Kindly explain? What do you know about the concept of "Moksha" and "Nirvana" in Jainism? How do you know if the theory of "rebirth" is not different in Jainism?. Please do not impose so vehemently such blanket statements on wiki users.[reply]

You have committed another offence: Please be in your limits

Legalese 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. Regarding your latest post on the Dharmic Religion page on WIKI, User: IAF/Indian Air Force, where you have quoted from a page, which you claim is a "Scholarly reference"(and you give all of us another chance of how you use pieces of information from the WORLD WIDE web, without even noting their context or relevance) please note the following DISCLAIMER on the end of the page. 1. You accused User: Anish Shah of quoting from a Jain "Orthodox" Website. Can you read ISKON or ARYA Samaj out there? No information is to be re-used or quoted, unless from permission by the Author. Please note that views held here, are in conjunction with Vedic views, such as those expressed by ISKCON members and the ARYA SAMAJ, not held by Islamic, Christian and other such organizations, and the author takes no responsibility for the results of the views held here and their consequences.

The author strongly advises that the content in these articles is to be used for non-commercial personal use, and not to be researched further, because of the risky nature of this content.

2. Your use of the quote is in "copyright violation" Because the author "reserved" the right "not to be copied"

3. Regarding your statement that "The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads" which you said you are "quoting", I will show how you grossly misquoted.

You quoted it as follows: "The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads"

The website you refer to ACTUALLY reads: "Presenting secret doctrines mainly in the form of dialogues between teachers and students of sacred learning, the Upanisads contributed substantially to the development of philosophical ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism."

To make it a bit more clear to you, my dictionary says "quote" means: "Repeat a passage from". This does not include "moulding" or "reframing" the passage to suit one's own version.

4. That apart, the author to whom this page, (http://www.aasianst.org/book-prizes-ramanujan.htm)'from which you MISQUOTED' refers in the relevant part to a work of Prof. Olivelle for which he got a prize. He is a very learned professor on Indology, and he does not (I am sorry to say DOES NOT) believe that Jainism or Buddhism sprang from Hinduism. I say this on the basis of his reply to my email (feel free to seek a copy, or write to him for a clarification).

5. You tried to give your own whimsical meaning to legal concepts like "implied overruling" and implication of "name title" of a judgment. And without even checking the accuracy of your sweeping statements, you kept on insisting about how YOU think the concepts are to be defined, devoid of "common sense" or even "plain english" (I did show above, how). Only when you got to know that I am a student of law, you withdrew, that too, devoid of even the basic courtesy of accepting that you had made a mistake.

6. You keep quoting works from "degree holders in chinese medicine" and "geocities" pages, on Dharmic Religion, while I have put above several Professors and Scholars View (two of them are from the Yale University). You have not even replied to it yet.

7. You deleted the latest Supreme Court Judgment which is a crucial piece of information for this page on Dharmic Religion only to further your purpose of keeping this page in the way you want it to be, devoid of factual and material accuracy.

5. In name of being an editor of this page on Dharmic Religion, you have:

a.Used absolutely defamatory and unbefitting language for a Court of Law, and that too, for the Apex court of a country (to quote you, "Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement again and again to chew." and I have already shown above (if it is not literally clear enough), how this statement of yours, which you now say does not, but actually does, refer only to the Supreme Court's Judgment and not to anyone's comment or statement)

b. Commited an illegal act, namely tried to incite religious disharmony by making a statement (unfortunately, to quote your abhorrent remark), "this might explain why Jains reject the Vedas. Some of what they claim as Tirthankars are depicted as demons in it.") which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, ... groups or castes or communities, (the portion in bold here is directly being quoted from Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code)

In light of the above, I feel it is high time, that this page on Dharmic Religion should avoid you for atleast some time. Would you like to have a self imposed fetter, or do you want me to make a complaint. And next time, should you use such language for any religion or its icons, which goes totally against the spirit of Wiki, its etiquettes and ethics, and also is offensive, illegal, inciteful, showing hatred, and of all things, not civil...you would not receive a request, but probably a legal notice or summon.Legalese 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Help improve this article

Hi. I have noticed your edits to the Indian Air Force page, and I think you're doing a good job.

I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping to improve the Indian MRCA Competition Page. It would be nice to improve it and make it more factual. Thanks and Cheers. Sniperz11 10:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Its just another contract. That was my first impression as well; but there has been quite some interest in this contract, and I thought that that warranted an article on it. Hope to see u around. Hope you'll find some time to improve the page. Cheers. Sniperz11 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rgvedic Dating

Please instantly see on Talk:Rgveda : Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions -Vinay Jha 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

are you now losing it completely, or what was that? [1][2]--dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You delete someone else's post on a talk page again to prove your point, and you editing career here will be over sooner that you can blink. Doing so just to prove a point is exceptionally poor conduct. Moreschi ^Talk 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 96 hours for harassment and edit-warring. That was completely pointless. Moreschi ^Talk 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I complained to Moreschi that DAB had deleted my talk on Rgveda and was insisting on keeping a wrong etymology of Rgveda in the main article which I compelled him to rectify, after which DAB started abusing me, but Moreschi retorted that he does not care , and said that IAF had harassed DAB and had to be blocked ! After you acted on DAB (which you should not in that way), Moreschi reacted just 7 minutes later. - Vinay Jha _{Vinay Jha} .00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Why you do not give your email address ? -Vinay Jha _Talk 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I put something in 'nonsense' on DAB's page which I hope he will soon delete; please read it.Vinay Jha _Talk 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove request for citations

At dharmic religions you removed a request for citation with the stated reason that this is well-known fact. I do not believe that this is well-known fact and even if it is then you would find sources very quickly. I tried but was unable to. Andries 16:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikistalking

I don't mind if you look through my contributions, but edits like this are vandalism, and edits like that are pointless wikistalking. You know, of course, that vandalism is blockable per WP:BLOCK, so I won't leave you a generic warning template. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 09:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless you have something worthwhile to say to me, I would suggest you keep off my talkpage, it is cluttered enough as it is. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic religion

I appreciate your position, since I largely agree, but please keep things polite and cool. Making comments like "western unemployed bozos" is a bit unhelpful and likely to get people heated. Thanks! Vassyana 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAF, Please cool down.--nids (♂) 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAF, in Wikipedia you have to learn to cite reputable sources and if you cannot then you have to accept that a statement that you would like to stay is removed by other contributors of Wikipedia. See WP:NOR and WP:verifiability. Andries 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha

I fear you did not read my talks on Talk:Ganesha, otherwise you could not repeat the deliberately propagated falsehood about "Śiva, Gauri (Pārvati), Skanda and Ganeśa", all of whom were worshipped in various recensions of the Yajurveda . "Śiva" was often used as an adjective meaning "auspicious", but it also denoted a particular deity who was also called "Rudra, Mahādeva, Śambhu, Śankara, Paśupati, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Nīlagrīva" (Nīlakantha) and a lot of other synonyms in Yajurveda. During my college years I also believed in false theories until I read the original texts (the late Vice Chancellor of my university had asked me to read the original texts, which changed my views). Indologists were aware of this fact, yet some people deliberately concocted false theories. You should not have reacted before reading some of the proofs I had posted on Talk:Ganesha. I know there are good Europeans and bad Indians, I do not see the world in black and white. Please use "VJha" for addressing me, and not my first name ; I am too old for it. -VJha 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments at Jha Vinayji's page. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vinay_Jha&diff=157803199&oldid=157802002BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Worship1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Worship1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week. in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Repeated and aggressive edit warring and disruption at Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Length of block reflects repeated behaviour, repeated violations of 3RR and that a 96 hour block was imposed just over a month ago for similar behaviour.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Indefinitely blocked

I have reset your block to indefinite, due to further disruption, personal attacks and evading your block.[3] Vassyana 08:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Vassyana, personal attacks cannot be the reason to block my account indefinitely; for if it were truly so, then Manish Modi and AnishShah too are liable to be blocked immediately. Why you haven't blocked them is best known to you, and is suspect to me. This is because, a patient perusal or browse through the talk:page of Indian Religions by you or anyone, will give a similar/symmetric use of language by me and Anish and Manish. The same thing applies to the frivolous charge of and I quote, "Repeated and aggressive edit warring". There is not an iota of difference in the language used. tone or tenor in the point for point replies to the points between me and Anish-Manish duo. Hence, this smacks of a premediated bias against me only and not against those 2, who also happen to belong from the same community like Vassyana. Do bother to do that. Furthermore, both those guys or accounts have also together violated the 3RR rule, which although is technically legal, but is violative in spirit. Within 24 hours, both of them together have reverted the article at least twice, whereas I have done so 3 times. As to the next charge of "disruption", a 3RR rule often attracts a warning and not a weekly ban. Vassyana, you have erred in influencing this decision of yours by reffering to a last-month ban imposed on me for 96 hours. Firstly, I have already borne the complete the penalty of the last-month's ban which irons out the action-reaction sum (a violation is not considered for perpetuity). Secondly and most importantly, the ban was NOT for violation of the 3RR rule, but was due to undoing some DBachmann's edits without giving reason.

It is a fervent appeal from me that this matter be under the arbitration of a non-Jain administrator to avoid the influence of personal grudges against my edits in the Indian religions talk page. An injunction against this ban by Vassyana be made by those moderators, who are neutral in the approach and who do not share religious/community affiliation to the complainants(Manish Modi and AnishShah), and who do not have a personal stake in the article concerned. This is in keeping and upholding the tradition of all fairness and justice in wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Your request is too long and confused. Be more brief. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK Sandstein. 1> The ban for 3RR violation should not be indefinite. 2> I have not used "abusive" language in the talk-page of Indian religions; the other editors in the talk-page of Indian religions too have used the same tone and tenor and they haven't been banned. 3> They have not been banned precisely because the moderator who has banned me, also belongs to the same community/religion as the other editors whom I was arguing against (we were arguing about the origins of their community and their religion). 4> Hence, I request neutral moderation.

Decline reason:

Your block is for abusing multiple accounts. Your block has already been reviewed on WP:ANI. Given that you have not addressed the reason for your block and given that you are making unfounded accusations against the blocking admin, I think it would be inappropriate to unblock you at this time. — Yamla 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment to reviewing admin. I am not a Jain. Beyond that, this user violated 3RR, while evading his block.[4][5][6][7] His talk page comments under those IPs reveal his identity.[8][9][10][11] The initial block was put up for review here and the indef block was put up for review here. Vassyana 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla, if you see the review, admin LesHarvardU (spelling?) has rightly argued that I never attempted to conceal my identity even while editing under different IP addresses. Hence, Vassyana's claim of "revealing my identity" in the sense of being 'exposed' or 'caught red-handed' are moot points, because I never hid my identity in the first place.

In my defence, I request you to see my edits away from the blinkers of the 3RR rule temporarily. Every edit and talk have been backed by ELABORATE references.

Vassyana mentions in WP:ANI that he consulted and was influenced by an admin called Moreschi about my ban. Moreschi had banned me for 96 hours NOT FOR 3RR, but for sporadically undoing DBachmann's edits within a span of a few minutes in response to DBachman's blanking out my edits in some talk page. I have already undergone (atoned if you may) for that action, by being under a ban for 96 hours AND That should have no bearing on this case. If you do want to look at a past offence, then justice demands that you also look at my NUMEROUS, past contribs to enhance wikipedia articles too. They span for more than a year.

Vassyana in WP:ANI says that You are correct that a shorter extension while soliciting further feedback would have probably been best, regardless of how justified it may have been. I will bear this in mind in the future. While writing this, this was the future and the block should be lifted now.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A 3RR ban and posting under different IP addresses under the ban should not attract an indefinite ban. As I've said, Vassyana is influenced by an earlier 96 hour ban imposed on me last month (by admin Moreschi)---which btw was not for 3RR at all--- while ignoring my previous contribs to wikipedia. Firstly, a past ban has been over and done with---portraying that as a habitual offence is wrong because that 1 ban came after more than a year of sustained and consistent contributions to wikipedia. Still despite that, if you DO want to influence this decision by that spot in my ban-log, then d0 look at my past contribs on wikipedia also to weigh the case.

As for Vassyana's claim of not being Jain is concerned, his edits some months back on the now-defunct Dharmic religions article leaned toward orthodox Jain PoV, and going by my experience with Jain editors, which convinced me that he was Jain.

Endpoint :- Look away from mere 3RR and posting under un-disguised IPs. Look at the veracity and concreteness of my contribs here (even in the Indian religions page.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you intended to ask for further review of the block, you have accidentally used unblock reviewed. Please be aware repeated use of the unblock template may result in your page being protected, depending on the circumstances. Vassyana 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block period reset

I have reviewed and reset the block for 1 month from today. An indefinite block is a ban, and given the nature of the prior blocks, it should have been done in increments. Bans should be for prevention not punitive. Once the block expires, please review the user's conduct if the block was sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the article on dharma. Please do not take offense if I remove some of your edits. This article has been through a long process of refinement. Please read the article before editing it. Some of the changes you have made are unhelpful. For example you have repeated a section of text from the introduction and repeated it in the etymological preamble. This is unhelpful and constitutes a form of vandalism. Please do not revert my next edit or I shall report your behaviour to an administrator. If you read the introduction as it stands then you will also understand that your changes to the introductory paragraph are based on misapprehensions. I will happily answer any questions you may have about dharma but please behave decently or you will give rise to an unnecessary dispute in this article that has so far been characterised by courtesy and goodwill in its preparation. Best wishes. Glenn Langdell (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Religions

I have replied to your points on User_talk:Anishshah19/Discussion_with_IAF. I am waiting for your response.--Anish (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have the necessary knowledge to effectively deal with your conflict on Indian religions, but I did what I could and added my suggestions to Discussion with IAF. Please read them and see what you and Anish Shah can do. I think that the most important step in resolving this is to avoid assumptions of bad faith. I would suggest that you copy and paste sections from the article that are disputed onto the talk page and change the disputed parts as you see fit, then let Anish Shah do the same, and compromise using both of your ideas and others'. I'll try to fix the grammar, as that appears to be a recurring issue, and look it over to see if it's unbiased and well-referenced; I'll assume that both of you as well as others such as Legalese and Manish Modi will do the same and help refine it. Then it will be fit to edit in the actual article. You can contact me on my talk page if anything important happens.

As an explanation for why I'm posting this, I was called to arbritrate between you and Anish Shah in the discussion. This was copied-and-pasted virtually word for word from Anish Shah's talk page. --Qmwne2 3 5 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dharma article

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Dharma. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Langdell (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of my merge tags

From Indian religions. Please do not remove them. I admit I have to review past consensus (if you could provide diffs of past discussions I'd appreciate it), but it doesn't seem clear to me that past consensus was solid on this issue and consensus can always change. By removing the merge tags, you seem to oppose even the mere discussion of a possible merge, which goes against WP:CONSENSUS. Zenwhat (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their removal was unintentional, infact lazy. Otherwise in order to revert a previous editor's edit I first have to meticulously copy-paste your latter edits, then open different windows and so on.

However I do not agree with the merge proposal at all. Like the Semitic religions, Indian religions are the other important polar branch of religions that arose in a particular geographical region, and which all have commonalities and similarities in belief system, philosophy and in the origins of these. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that India has a rich religious history and that most Eastern religions originated there. The same holds true of Mesopotamia (modern-day Iran\Iraq) and western religion, but please note the fact that Mesopotamian religion doesn't mention Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at all. The reason is because it would be silly to associate these religions with Mesopotamia just because they originated there, and it's an assertion you couldn't verify. Buddhism developed just as much outside of India as it did within India, because Indian Buddhism is Theravada, but most Buddhists are Mahayana, which largely developed outside of India. As I saw, the article invokes Eastern religion as a whole as being "Indian," which is inaccurate. I cited a number of examples of this, all with sources to back them up. We can keep the article on Indian religions, but it should be renamed "History of religion in India." Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion, though, should be merged. That's what I'm proposing. Zenwhat (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (January 2008)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring and disruption on Indian religions. Length of block reflects previous history. Please reconsider your approach and attitude. Disruptive edit warring will not help you achieve your content goals. I would encourage you to work cordially and constructively with the other parties when your block expires. I would also encourage you to persue dispute resolution to help find productive solutions to your disputes.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Vassyana (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Other than 3rr I presume there no other reason for this block. The approach is fine which uses well referenced, educated and exhaustive reference material to put forward arguments using google books. The attitude is a matter of perception : using local slang language that is neither an expletive nor even means anything (arey bhai or abey yar) should neither be deemed "offensive" nor unacceptable.

This 3RR can easily be subverted when a couple of memebrs team up to revert WITHOUT individually violating the 3RR in a span of 24 hours. That's what Manish Modi and AnishShah19 have done on Indian religions. This is an opinion, not a charge.

Now, as a responsible member of wikipedia, who values the painstaking effort the founders and managers of wikipedia make to run this globally acclaimed free encyclopaedia, AnishShah19 is maintaining 2 accounts :- One which is AnishShah19, and one which he created to "discuss with IAF", the various ramifications of what a gaggle of scholarly sources (that he found out on Indian religions), have been saying on Jainism. That account is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anishshah19/Discussion_with_IAF.

A stagnant, and inactive user account like this violates the principle of keeping 2 accounts per member. This wastes memory and bandwidth of the servers of Free wikipedia foundation. Also, the cardinal principle of editing is that all talk, discussion and viewpoints pertaining to the article must be posted only on the talk page of that article only, and nowhere else. By creating a separate account like this, only ANishShah19 knows what he's been up to.

I request you to take action against this parasitic account created by AnishShah19, because he refuses to delete it. Taking action against the operator of the account is left to moderators (give him a warning, a block or whatever).

Now, I have another grievance against this following edit by Manish Modi on the talk page of Indian religions : http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_religions&diff=prev&oldid=183602167

Besides being an offensive taunt, riddled with adjectival slurs with clear intent to cause pain, via insult and hurt, it is also totally irrelevant to the topic that is being discussed. This user only has such untenable contribs on the talk page of Indian religions, and has no qualms whatsoever in posting these without the slightest hint of regret. I ask of the reviewing moderators to take punitive action against User Manish Modi.

Decline reason:

reason — With your disruptive history, you're lucky you only got a week to sit out and think about your behavior. Also, you may find admins more receptive to your requests if you ask instead of "demand". — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IAF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If by "disruptive history" you only mean 3RR bans, then even a week is too much according to prevalent trends that I've seen on wikipedia. They range from 24 to 48 hours. Besides, you must also see my hundreds of edits and contribs that have been made to enhance wikipedia and not concentrate only on past 3rr bans.

I changed "demand" to "ask" even though it was a heartfelt appeal and a fervent plea.

Decline reason:

The block duration is appropriate considering your previous blocks. — Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely dispute the term in the charge of CONTINUED edit warring by Vassyana. This charge by Vassyana is a biased charge and does not conform to its definition enshrined in the edicts of wikipedia. For if it were not, then AnishSHah19 too should have been subjected to a block lasting for atleast a few days; the only difference between my reversion history and his being that I inadvertently violated the 3RR on the last leg of my edits before this week-long block.

A cursory glance on the talk page will reveal that each and every one of my edits have been backed by volumnous data and explanations on tha talk-pages. These edits also span a few days also and not necessarily one per day. So this block is essentially due to a violation of simple 3RR just prior to this block; moderator Vassyana should remove the phrase, "CONTINUED warring" from my block log.

Since I was not aware of the syntax of creating user sub-pages within the same user-space, I mistook the user-page AnishShah19/DIscussion with IAF to be a separate user-page itself and thereby demanded its deletion. I agree I was mistaken earlier due to a lack of info on wikipedia's parsed syntax in this particular case, and its manifestation on titles and headers of pages. So, I accept the existence of the sub-page that user AnishShah19 had created and withdraw all opposition to it.

I chanced upon [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jose.chacko this] block done by moderator Vassyana. Moderator Vassyana has furtively run roughshod over the discretionary powers he has on account of being a moderator. As Vassyana has stated in the block summary of user Jose.chacko, the latter has been blocked on mere suspicion of sockpuppetry. Besides, the edit summary Jose used on the IR revert, is the automated one, which Vassyana found "insulting".

But the main point is the implied accusation on me being Jose.chacko, which is totally false. Vassyana does not have any proof, link, or even a shred of evidence to prove so, except a past block log in which I even revealed my wiki ID while editing from various IP addresses during a block. This is not only totally against the norms and rules of wikipedia, this is a totally unbased wild charge against me and Jose.Chacko. Once again, I request independent moderators other than Vassyana to revert the crass block on Jose.Chacko, followed by a full apology posted on the talk pages of Jose.chacko and mine, by moderator Vassyana.Indian_Air_Force (IAF)Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)My application of the phrase "continued edit-warring" is quite appropriate considering your history, as acknowledged by the uninvolved sysops who responded to your unblock requests. Your "volumnous data and explanations"[sic] in combination with your propensity to edit war is a discouraged sort of participation.

I have provided exhaustive data for discussing the article, justification of my edits and without disparaging AnishShah's sources, because I used his own sources. This act lies fully within the scope and purview of editing in wikipedia.

Your assertion of edit-warring cannot be true in the logical sense of the term also. For, if it were to be so, you should have applied a similar block on AnishShah19 too, because for every revert, edit and explanation of mine, he too has an exact, equal and opposite and equally frequent revert, equally exact and frequent edit and explanation. The only delta in the reversion history lies in my inadvertent flout of 3RR, just prior to this block. That you have not imposed an albeit lesser blcok on AnishShah19 smacks of an undue pre-mediated and underhanded bias. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet block is fairly plain. It is a user who is obviously familiar with Wikipedia (indicator of sockpuppet) and the only edits made seem geared towards edit warring/disruption (a prohibited sort of sockpuppet). I did indeed ask for a checkuser, which came back negative. Your block has not been extended, that user is not marked as your sockpuppet, etc. In other words, even though it is not your sockpuppet (and in no way is it indicated as such), it is still a disruptive sockpuppet. Also, the insult comment was the account's other edit, not IR, which is clear in my block notice to that user. I will not apologize for implementing a policy-based block. I neither will apologize for asking that a checkuser investigate a new account's possible relation to you when one of its two edits were restoring a version of Indian religions that only you have pushed. This endless bickering and finger-pointing is not going to get you anywhere. I would suggest you consider that multiple unrelated sysops have indicated that you are indeed being disruptive and have demonstrated that behaviour as a continuing trend. Please take the feedback seriously and moderate your behaviour accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki definition on sockpuppet is :- The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the active exploitation of the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer. You did imply that I am masquerading A sockpuppet, which you obviously backed up by block history. No matter how strong your hunch or gut feeling, YOU CANNOT judge a new member on the basis of just 2 edits. This is errily close to being a gestapo policing rather than preventive moderation. This is clear abuse of your moderating power.

If you got a negative response on the usercheck of that Jose.chacko as you just said, why did you block him ?? It is clearly not a disruptive sockpuppet because then the same charge can just as easily be hurled at ManishMOdi, who as I pointed out in this very unblock request, has hurled filthy provocative abuses at me on IR's talk-page. He has made far more reverts to AnishSHah's version than the single revert by this chacko guy--- all without any reasoning in the talk-page (of course except the personal attacks on me and such). Yet you (or any mod) takes no action against him, but do so against this newbie, who probably did not know what was in store for him.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Please keep your comments/discussion about the block outside of the unblock templates. The request was responded to and the further text is not an additional unblock request. In addition to muddling the unblock requests, it makes it difficult to distinguish your comments from the unblock requests. If you wish to make a further unblock request, you may do so again, but I would recommend against it since you were already declined twice. Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No all this comes within my unblock request :- removal of 'continued warring' and the implied charge of sockpuppetryIndian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my block period was earlier 15 Jan, after which it became 16 Jan and now it shows 19 Jan. If it is being done by some moderator, then he should first reveal himself here and say so why. Otherwise, I would like to know why this is happeningIndian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sock account, it's very unlikely they are someone new to the wiki. The very selective use of the undo function to continue an edit war and the edit summary with the other edit make it very clear that the user is quite familiar with Wikipedia. Their only contribution was furthering edit wars. I truly cannot see the controversy in blocking such an account. The checkuser came up negative, exonerating you of a direct connection to that account. Whether or not you were involved with the account, it is clearly an account created for disruptive purposes. Vassyana (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your own premise negates the genesis of wikipedia, that it is a free for all who conform. Its doors are open to rookies or experts or just about anyone who has interest. Mere suspicion and apprehension in banning a newcomer, without giving him a meagre chance to prove himself in later edits, is in my view, a bad use of your moderating privelege.

In fact, most users register in wikipedia PRECISELY when they become familiar with its working. Recall how you got initiated into wikipedia; it wasn't a one-fine-day adventure was it ?Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative. If sysops are given reason to believe that an account is only created for vandalism, disruption or edit warring, it is not uncommon for those accounts to be indefinitely blocked. Blocks of all sorts are regularly overturned if the user demonstrates an understanding of what the problem was and shows a believable intent to contribute productively to the project. This approach to blocking is perfectly normal and rational. Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other editors, both have been warned about the edit war. If they persist after a friendly warning, I expect they shall be blocked to prevent disruption to the wiki. I would hope that everyone could sit down and have a civilized conversation about how to find a version tolerable, if not acceptable, to everyone. I would strongly recommend that everyone involved seek dispute resolution.

You should have banned Modi atleast, given the yardstick used to ban me. Whatever....Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to unblock you if you would promise to seek constructive solutions to the disagreement, including outside help if needed. I would recommend that you try to keep your discussion posts relatively short, to the point and polite. Just keeping a bit shorter and using a less argumentative tone can be very helpful. I would make clear to the other parties to the dispute that I expect the same kind of courtesy and civility from them as well. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You as well as everyone know that my edits are backed up by factual, decisive and conclusive arguments on talk pages. So there is no question of this so-called disruptive behaviour, because then it would also apply to AnishShah19, who ahs done as many reverts and edits as I have on the IR article.

Now you promise not only me, but all of us that hence forth you will not be biased against any member not favour any other member, you shall act against all members of both sides of the dispute who are at fault, you shall not act on flimsy reasons of suspicion, and you shall not use exaggerative language while describing block reasons (like if its 3RR, just say so). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The continued argumentative attitude will not serve you well. Regardless of how correct you believe yourself to be, it is obvious that there is a lack of consensus for your preferred version. I will once again encourage you to work productively and civilly with other users, regardless of your personal beliefs, after your block expires. If necessary, seek outside assistance in finding a solution. I have not acted with any bias or favoritism. You have a clearly established history of disruption and edit-warring, as reflected by your block log. (As indicated by other reviewing admins, this block probably should have been longer considering that history.)

The 'continued arguments' are not only rightful unblock requests and an attempt to present my case, it is also meant to throw light on your vandalizing moderation, that is on the brink of reproachable action against yourself. Consider yourself very lucky that in this ocean of words, no one has the time & patience to deliver just moderation against you. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

boss, that history consists of 4 3rr related blocks and one block by Moreschi that I've talked about earlier. It was that block that was the most contentious, but otherwise my contribs on wikipedia have been periodic, argumentative and backed by democratic talk. Do click on my user contribs too once upon a while. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added after some time :- Can you tell me other than the abusive Manish Modi, exactly how many other members have supported AnishShah's version of IR ? Even one example would do. In my case, I can cite Doldrums, Bharatveer and of course, jose.chacko whom you unceremoniously banned. Its just that they gave up after a couple of attempts, leaving AnishShah's reversions to be tacked by me.

Once again, Vassyana, you've been lying ..Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anishshah19 and Mohish Modi do not have such a clearly established history and their block logs are "clean".

That is because, you sir, did not initiate action against them in the first place thus artificially creating a clean-log-hence-no-block situation for them. Manish Modi's spiteful edit has not even been mentioned by you (or any other mod), even though I gave you the link where he has said all that he has said. Even now you have time to act against Modi coz he has not yet removed his edit or apologized in any way.. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they persist in disruption and/or edit warring, they will be blocked to prevent disruption of the project. This includes "tag team" (or cooperative) revert warring. If you did not have the establish history and block log, you also would have simply received the same warning and encouragement to seek productive resolution that they received. Regarding block reasons, disruption and edit warring are accurate descriptions. 3RR is a specific kind of edit warring (and it is generally accepted as disruptive), instituted to make an "electric fence" (or an absolute limit to revert warring). It does not create a separate category of infraction, but rather just defines a hard limit. Since your response indicates you have not accepted the reason for your block and it lacks any indication that you will seek productive ways to move forward, I cannot unblock you at this time.

I have already accepted the 3RR violation that I did, but not the other string of reasons you gave like, "continued edit warring" (then what did AnishShah19 did; discontinued edit ceasefire ?) and such forth. Look into the history of IR edits, and see that Anishshah edits have stood around far longer than mine.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block period, I don't see changes in your block log.[12] Your block should expire on January 19, as it was a one week block set on January 12. Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ISKCON work group or subproject?

Hello. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To IAF and Anishshah19

On the page Indian religions, I see that the two of you seem to have some disagreements about the article content. Please use the article talk page to discuss your differences and try to find a version of the article that you can both agree or compromise on. See WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't tend to work very well to have a discussion using edit summaries. It's better to use a talk page, where there's more room to describe your reasons. Note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate WP:3RR. Please try to think about how the other person will feel when they read your comment. It's important to try to keep everybody calm: that's the best to have a chance of finding a compromise. Please try to avoid comments such as "I dont care about this so called ..." or "Who cares about what you care ?". I hope to see polite discussion between you happening on the talk page, instead of reverting the article. I'm putting essentially the same message on Anishshah19's talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sanskrit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

I am sorry that you always seem to be getting yourself in trouble but you must learn to work co-operatively with others as well as make sure that you are actually improving an article instead of diminishing it by making ill-informed additions. It is important to read an article before making changes. You seem to charge in like a wild bull causing various sorts of havoc. Peace and harmony is an important factor in developing other people's contributions. Best wishes. Mr Langdell (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Langdell (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the article dharma once more you shall receive a third warning and the appropriate steps will be taken to remedy your disruptive behaviour. Langdell (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

There is nothing to discuss with you. Your edits are disruptive, factually incorrect and show contempt for the long process of editorial co-operation on this article.Langdell (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit incivility

this edit is unacceptable, especially in the context where I've already asked you to be civil. You've now added soapboxing to your incivility and unkind personal remarks. I recommend that you take a close look at your recent comment, remove that which is objectionable, and post the remainder. You're not going to convince anyone to see your way by being the biggest asshole. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to be more civil. I understand that, when tensions are high, it can be more difficult. In response to your comment on my talk page, I would like to point out that I didn't technically call you anything; I was speaking more generally (the English language is tricky like that). Also, I'm not an administrator (I don't want the responsibilities), but it's nice that I seem respectable enough. Regards. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

appriciate your efforts

I appriciate your efforts to restore NPOV on Hinduism. Please feel free to send me a mail. I also observed that editors who try to restore NPOV on Hinusism related articles are targeted. Keep up the good work Sindhian (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 523: / Line 523: @@
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASanskrit&diff=226587597&oldid=226278360 this edit] is unacceptable, especially in the context where I've already asked you to be civil.  You've now added soapboxing to your incivility and unkind personal remarks.  I recommend that you take a close look at your recent comment, remove that which is objectionable, and post the remainder.  You're not going to convince anyone to see your way by being the biggest asshole.  — [[User:Aeusoes1|Æµ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 :I appreciate your efforts to be more civil.  I understand that, when tensions are high, it can be more difficult.  In response to your comment on my talk page, I would like to point out that I didn't technically call you anything; I was speaking more generally (the English language is tricky like that).  Also, I'm not an administrator (I don't want the responsibilities), but it's nice that I seem respectable enough.  Regards. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Æµ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 07:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+==appriciate your efforts ==
+I appriciate your efforts to restore NPOV on Hinduism. Please feel free to send me a mail. I also observed that editors who try to restore NPOV on Hinusism related articles are targeted. Keep up the good work [[User:Sindhian|Sindhian]] ([[User talk:Sindhian|talk]]) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)