User talk:Hornplease/Archive4

Regarding Koenraad Elst[edit]

I am trying to contact him and have contacted some of his associates to that effect. Please suspend discussion on this topic and monitor the users who are trying to defame him until I can get him to respond, either directly or through me. If you are as non-partisan on this issue as you imply then you should have no trouble providing the benefit of the doubt. Thanks.Netaji 23:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Discussion can be suspended, and I will monitor the use of his name. Please, however, it would be best if when you approached Dr. Elst or his associates, you did not say that he was being 'defamed', but stated the problem as blandly as possible. Wikipedia does not need legal problems. Hornplease 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I believe you said that he can be cited with qualification. Bear in mind that he (Elst) is notable enough from the point of view of wikipedia to have a wikipedia article on him. He can be quoted with qualification.Shiva's Trident 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, an article on WP doesnt mean in itself that he is a reliable source. David Irving has an article.

Second, even if he is cited, which I am coming to doubt having read some of his stuff since the discussion, at most he can be cited with qualification in articles specifically about Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc etc, which is self-professed area of expertise, and as a representative of a viewpoint that some believe is unfairly excluded from mainstream academia. An article on Indian nationalism has to have more mainstream citations, especially since we shouldnt have any major POV issues there. (I still dont understand why you need to cite him at all; please reconsider the entire drift of that article.) Hornplease

David Irving is frequently cited with qualification in articles about Holocaust Denial (Irving is a holocaust denier). As far as Indian nationalism is concerned, You may have a point abt citing him. It's just that he is the best ref I couldfind regarding the connotations of Nationalism (something that any well-educated Indian can anecdotally confirm).

I find it a bit offensive that you choose to attack Indians on Indian Nationalism, but don;t extend the same treatment on Pakistani nationalism.Shiva's Trident 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the point I was making about Irving - who I know is a holocaust denier, thanks, that was the point - was that he would be cited in a holocause denial article, or even a holocaust article, but not (perhaps unfortunately, as his other work on Nazism was done with access to archives since unread) in more general articles about WWII.

As you say, about the connotations of nationalism, I couldnt say for certain. I will just say that if you cant find a ref that seems justifiable, set it aside, make a note, keep looking, and reintroduce the text when you find one. WP isnt going anywhere.

Finally, I didnt even know that Pakistani nationalism existed. I know about this article because I was around when Nirav created it last year and set it aside for cleaning up when I had time. The Pakistan article seems to have appeared last week. I think its a little unfair for you to be offended under those circs, dont you think? Hornplease 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specially since the Pakistani Nationalism article should, in my opinion, be effectively replaced with a redirect to Two Nation Theory.Hornplease 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rants[edit]

"POinting us to pages that talk abt mathematics in India doesnt answer the point that none of these mathematicians did work that was specifically Hindu, which is the only way in which this cat can be kept as per policy. Nobody in this debate has answered that point. Unless someone does, this cat must be deleted. Hornplease 06:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

They called the people "Hindu mathematicians". Good job not reading the source.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr.. that the pages merely popped up as a result of a google search for the phrase doesnt mean that they support the arguments that were being raised, namely mathematicians doing work that was specifically Hindu. Could you think about that for a moment, please? Thanks. Hornplease 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its merely mathematicians that are Hindu. Of course not reading the sources and asking questions where you will dispute any answer even if its verified or even (gasp!) correct doesnt make you look smart. Nobody cares for academic jargon, its about common sense. They're mathematicians, theyre Hindu, sources back it up. Done.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, I'm afraid, whatever your sadly overestimated 'common sense' might tell you. Nobody doubts that they were Hindu. However, I suggest you now recuse yourself from the discussion, since in spite of being told about thirty times, you still haven't understood that that is insufficient for the cat to exist, as per policy. Hornplease 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"per policy. per policy" How about cite something? How about "academically" back it up with "policy"? or is this another WP:OR stunt.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka, you're skating on perilously thin ice in terms of civility here. You dont want to go through it, I'm sure, so get a hold of yourself. About policy, since you seem to not have found it in spite o the fact that its liberally quoted across the discussion, here it is:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life.

For further reference: [1] Have fun. And please, tone down the antagonism. I know I should expect no better from you, but someone else might. Hornplease 06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nehru[edit]

Hi Hornplease - thanks for the input. Do please pitch into its FA Drive. You can leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jawaharlal Nehru/archive1. Rama's arrow 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

salman rushdie[edit]

i reverted your last edit to this article. the satanic verses controversy is covered in depth in the article about the book, so i tried (repeatedly) to keep the section fairly basic in this article. you will see if you look at some of the older discussion bits. also i think there were changes in several sections that you reverted, because you did not like the changes in one section.trueblood 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of the article, where this concern should properly have been addressed. The older discussion bits are inconclusive, and do not justify your changes.Hornplease 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless rant[edit]

"The phrase may refer to someone born in the United States of Indian descent or to someone who has immigrated to the United States from the Republic of India." - Its kind of hard to be a professor at Columbia if you're not domiciled in America. I said its OR because there was no talk of an mba on naveen andrews and no hint of "alien visa" on partha chatterjee. "Rest of us" - you and zora? Like I actually care what either of you thinks about Wikipolicy or my actions. Immigration from your POV is irrelevant in this case.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not overuse the word 'useless'. You use it far to often, and I suggest that you attempt to find a word that more accurately fits the sense in which you use it, namely "something I did not read". About 'rest of us' I mean anyone who actually has an encyclopaedia to write rather than POVs to find and protect or push.

In this case in particular, I once again urge you read the immigration page. You can be a professor at Columbia while being on a short-term visa. Many, many people are. The immigration page says very, very clearly in the second sentence - and I reproduce it here to save you the obviously great trouble of actually going there - "Immigration implies long-term permanent residence by the immigrants". So unless you are a permanent resident, with a green card, or a citizen, you have not immigrated to the US. Is that clear? 'Domiciled' is not the word mentioned here, and nor is it mentioned anywhere. And I recommend that you had best care what other people on WP think of you, because this is a collaborative community, and it can be very frustrating if people lose trust in you and start viewing every edit you make as POV-pushing.Hornplease 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may explain why I have 4 DYK's, and am somehow one of the most active members on Bengal Wikiproject, WP Bangladesh and the like. By your reasoning, they would not trust a Hindutva (in Zora's words "anti-Isiamic fantasist, communal kook") user because I would only write about how Hindus are ethnically cleansed in B'desh. Somehow its like how I lost trust in you and Zora a long time ago. "Encyclopedia to write" - ~~From someone who voted delete on every single Hindu-related afd or cfd.~~Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not take me up on the offer on the CfD? For any problematic mathematician after say 19th century I was willing to prove it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that I havent observed this very carefully. Ragib and the other people involved in Bengal Wikiproject have taken the decision to trust you, and your little DYK project must have given them the impression that you're worth the investment. I personally admire your stamina, but think that your edits have shown a willingness to re-orient citations to serve whatever direction you wish an article to take too often. That in itself would not be a problem, if you werent so incredibly combative at the same time - something which I notice you carefully avoid when talking to other admins interested in India or Bengal. Fascinating. And where have I voted delete on avery Hindu-related AfD? I voted keep on Hindu Unity, I think, the second time it came up, and on many, many others. I voted delete on all religion-and-occupation cats, not just Hindu ones, and made the same argument on them all. Once again, you have chosen to be combative when it was unnecessary. Hornplease 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all the admins are perfectly aware of the POV fights I've gotten into. Combatative? When people cant cite reliable sources and instead cite Marxist/Pseudo-secular websites and Missionairy propaganda to fill their POV needs its my duty to stop them. Naveen Andrews/Chatterjee are neither tourists nor short-term visitors (especially Andrews judging by the success of the show Lost).Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objections arent to you removing citations that arent wp:rs. its that you, repeatedly, mischaracterise and misrepresent wp:rs sources. Over here, similarly, you are missing the point; you do this with such regularity that one is forced to assume you do it deliberately. While they are not tourists, they are not immigrants unless they are on an immigrant visa, which should be cited. Immigrants shows inclination to settle, a long-term permanent residency, as is explained on the appropriate page. This does not apply in this case. Please accept that and move on to your next little McCarthyesque war on the Marxists under every bush.Hornplease 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Living with a significant other and child is not an inclination to settle?Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Inclination to settle involves paperwork. Hornplease 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your recent creations of important events in Indian political history. Subjects such as the Bhagalpur blindings are under-represented on WP. I hope you will continue to work on them and add information as and when you can. Hornplease 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation.I agree that subjects such as the Bhagalpur blindings are under-represented on WP. Shyamsunder 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.Jayalalithaa[edit]

This is to record my appreciations regarding your recent edit [2] on the article. That has made the paragraph "neutral", while still giving all the information that are sourced and cited Doctor Bruno 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Togadia[edit]

I said I was working on it. Give me a few days to gather more information.Hkelkar 23:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOSA[edit]

FOSA is worse than White nationalists. At least WN people don;t pretend to be a "peace group". They say explicitly that they are racist anti-semites. FOSA is a terrorist cabal masquerading as a peace group. That's worse.Hkelkar 00:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is revealing, and actually quite frightening. But please, read my response to both of you on Baka's talk page. [3]. Hornplease 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but still FOSA is partisan per WP:RS. Is there a good reason the majority of links from their links section are for Pakistani orgs [4] ? I feel that FOSA characterizing educated parents as "Hindutva activists" is pretty bad [5] especially when a certain group of people are mired in a whole spiderweb of communism, Islamic fundamentalism, and secularist cabals [6]. What's more frightening is giving this group of people a legitimate voice in an encyclopedia.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont, then. Delete the mention in the Modi page.

About them characterising parents as activists, the link you sent me to on their webpage merely cites as opponents the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), who dont sound entirely unrelated to Hindutva. But maybe thats just me, and you're right. The second link, to a HVK site, fails to mention any links to Islamic terrorism. Whatever. Hornplease 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians CFD[edit]

The only consensus was that the category stays, meaning there were no caveats like the later CFD's. It was an overwhelming keep. Only two users besides you voted delete; One was made by a troll, the other delete was from a user that thought people like lalu prasad, Nehru, and paswan should be added (none of whom are Hindu, especially not Nehru.Said users vote was an invalid reason to delete. No religion based politician cats have that caveat of "self identifying" on them.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP under categorisation. Also note that the delete vote by a 'troll' may have made valid arguments. Finally, read up on what consensus means in deletion debates. Hornplease 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(12/3/1) is strong consensus to keep. The keep votes were unconditional as well. BLP would have figured at least into the scope of the category, and by the closing admin, meaning its already been taken care of. Your interpretation of how the overwhelming consensus to keep was made is irrelevant.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it is OR to twist consensus and BLP to your uses, and somehow try to push your interpretation of BLP as law. Note: I actually dont care what you think is acceptable, since consensus is totally against you, and Akash (the only person who may have agreed with you) changed his vote.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from wp:blp under categorisation, it is required that :

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

As you can see, this isnt OR, or my interpretation. It's just policy. Find a fight you can win. Hornplease 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In India, politics and religion go hand in hand. Also, the fact that he is a Maharaja may come into play, and verification is already found on the talk page due to his relations with Vasundhara Raje and his own coronation. I guess you assumed I didnt read WP:BLP. Congrats to losing the war. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but scope of the cat says "born as Hindus". Since he had a Hindu coronation (Nawabs dont have Hindu ceremonies), its obvious he was born a Hindu. Unless you find proof to the contrrary (meaning he converted to Islam, Xtianity, etc), he still is by law a Hindu. Therefore, he fits the guidelines of the cat. I think you are forgetting also which family he belongs to, that makes a difference. As a politician in Madhya Pradesh, religion based politics is the rule, with people like Uma Bharti and Arjun Singh using religion to get votes. In this environment, religion is notable. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Bakht, Naqvi, and Hussain (Shahnawaz) were added by me to the Muslim cat, not the Hindu one.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement that he had a BJP relative as proof of his Hinduism. I think that he uses his family to get votes not his religion. (He is in the Congress, after all. Family, not religion, get it?) Be that as it may, my only point here is that wp:blp is stringent about it. The cat was written for anyone 'born Hindus', but that is insufficient per wp:blp, which was made policy after the cat was written. I have left a note for Aksi to that effect, as I do not want to change it unilaterally. WP:Bold is all very well, but I'm not that bold. Hornplease 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify: I do not doubt that the Scindia family is traditionally Hindu. I say we have no citations about how Madhavrao Scindia brought up his family in particular. We need that in order to add this individual to the cat, even as it stands now.

Actually I was issued defwarn for some other article (ambedkar i think) before I created the cat, meaning this came after BLP. Look at the scope for Category:Muslim politicians , Category:Sikh politicians, Category:Jewish politicians (Actually it doesnt even have a scope) and the like. None have scopes as defined as the Hindu cat. Shaukat Aziz has nothing on there defining his religion (except the muslim politicians cat). However Madhvraoji raised his kids, Jyotiraditya had a Hindu coronation, which means he was born Hindu, which means he stays in the cat. Also, Madhvrao Scindia had a hindu death ceremony [7] and the handing over of the pugri was done at the hanuman mandir in a Hindu ceremony, meaning he was by law a Hindu as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation warning[edit]

Please don't defame biographies of living people. Compare this with Robert Spencer, which also calls someone researcher in the intro. The intro is not the place to place defamations like this. --Bondego 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you know what defamation is precisely. I presume you refer to this edit [8]. It was an attempt at a compromise between you and twohorned. I see no reason why it is defamatory, Please read WP:BLP. Twohorned objected that Dr. Elst was not part of a professional outfit or a research team or a department, you pointed out that research does not require such a setup, I attempted to split the difference. This is not defamatory. Please do watch your words. Hornplease 22:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur has negative connotations. Don't use negative connations without sources, esp. in the intro. It is also very pov, and the word cannot be properly defined. So don't use it. "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Articles like Robert Spencer also use researcher in the intro, which is comparable. --Bondego 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so. convince the person you're in an edit war with, not me. I definitely dont think 'amateur' has negative connotations. On the contrary, its an accurate description of someone who doesnt do historical research for a living. (We're amateurs, you know.) Hornplease 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strange statement[edit]

Hello Hornplease. As you probably know, I try to maintain the acceptable minimum of honesty and impartiality on the Koenraad_Elst page, which is periodically vandalized by young hindutva supporters. User Bakaman has put quite a strange assertion about you in the talk page [9] which sounds very much like defamation to me (although I don't really understand what he means). Just for info. Take care. TwoHorned 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely citing a coincidence that both your name have the word "horn".Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian nationalism[edit]

Take a look into the article. I edited it extensively to meet the collective demands of editors involved. Freedom skies 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Hello, you are involved in a request for arbitration. Please see this case. TerryJ-Ho 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

You seem to have a significant editing history with Subhash bose/Netaji, more so than I. Would you mind including his disruptive edits as well on the arbitration case? They are relevant as User:Shiva's Trident is still currently banned, so you can assume that the sockpuppetry is true. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think all users involved in the arbitration are being examined, not just Hkelkar. You can add any evidence you feel is relevant. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Question[edit]

As a possible arbitrator for the Clash of Civilisations that is the RfArb on HKelkar, I wonder if I could ask a question: when a RfArb has been opened on a particular user, are the findings of fact going to focus on that user alone, or on all users cited by ArbComm as parties to the dispute? I ask because I have avoided, for purposes of sparing myself considerable aggravation, discussing my interactions with another user. However, if the ArbComm will be passing out some form of judgment on all involved, as has been suggested to me [10] I would not be able to square it with my conscience if I did not make an effort to at least begin to spell out some of the damage done by the others involved. Thank you for your time, and I apologise on behalf of all India-related editors for the degree of work that this arbitration will involve. We should have stamped this out earlier. I do hope that some good will come of it now. Hornplease 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is somewhat expandable, but we would not want to overdo it. You may note that I am proposing year long bans for those who feel they have the license to vigorously attack other cultures. At this point I have not considered your behavior. Fred Bauder 14:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel Bakasuprman is a major problem, please file a request for arbitration regarding him. Fred Bauder 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Martino /Renato Raffaele Martino[edit]

I see you have asked to move "Renato Cardinal Martino" to "Renato Martino". Would "Renato Raffaele Martino", his full name and the name under which he appears in List of cardinals, be better? I leave it entirely to you to decide. Lima 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Sikhs and Jains in India[edit]

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

I don't find "incivil friend" anywhere in the Hkelkar arbitration[edit]

After my last involvement in an Arbcom case, where giving evidence against a nationalist clique exposed me to several months of mudslinging, vicious attacks, and attempts to get me punished, I'm reluctant to ever get involved in an Arbcom case again. Let the damn WP go down in flames if that's the way things work here.

I couldn't find the phrase "incivil friend" anywhere in the proceedings. Am I indeed involved? Please give me a better pointer to the place where I'm mentioned, so that I can tell whether or not I'm going to have to defend myself. Again. Zora 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff[11]. I fancy a defence will not be necessary, and apologise again for mentioning you if you have such bad memories of ArbComm. I am not sanguine myself, but you must agree that an effort must be made. Hornplease 06:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I don't think I have to defend myself against Barksuprman. The edits that he's touting as proof of my perfidy seem to establish his, I think.

Wikipedia has a bad bad bad system (or lack of system) for managing conflicts between editors. I'm not sure that an effort must be made, or that it will do any good. WP will eventually be superseded by a similar project that manages conflicts better. I don't think Citizendium will be the successful project, but we may learn something from it.

My usual method of dealing with messes is to imagine the ideal system and then try to figure out the steps necessary to get there from here. I don't know what the ideal system might be. A karma-based system, like Slashdot or Everything2? Two kinds of karma, knowledge and "plays well with others"? Outside credentials don't matter, but editors can establish credentials HERE? Brainstorming, anyone? But I don't see TPTB (the powers that be) welcoming any major changes. Amazing that we can be so young, as a project, and so set in our ways. Zora 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Westwood[edit]

Have a look at the efect of your reversion to the above! Pleas be a little more careful when rving. Thanks Escaper7 12:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Hornplease, sorry for replying after so much time. I still don't think that a citation is needed. I mean I have seen Jains celebrating and worshipping Hindu gods, Sikhs and Hindus go to each others' places of worship, and most of all Sikhs, Jains and Hindus have the same customs and intermarry very often without thought. Actually all this was the reason of the observation of the Supreme Court. IAF

Indian politicians[edit]

Hello Hornplease, Thanks for considering me for the changes on the pages. But I am right now little busy in the studies due to my examinations those are going to be getting over tomorrow. Then I will try to remove unsourced and unverified edits followed by making some sourced edits on the articles. Sorry for the delay. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

may I interest you in Amartya Sen?[edit]

Hi Hornplease! As an academically-inclined Wikipedia enthusiast, you may enjoy an brand new interview with Amartya Sen on his recent book "Identity and Violence" on Thoughtcast. There's also an interview on Virgil's Georgics which may interest you... I'm Jenny Attiyeh, and a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I've been recently trying to figure out how to flesh out the Thoughtcast article with little success -- perhaps you would be willing to assist? (I live across the river from you.) I think I've figured out how to set up a username (jenattiyeh) so people can e-mail me. But the template and notability requests have left me in knots! Thanks very much -- Jenny Attiyeh

Request for arbitration[edit]

Thanks, Hornplease. I will try to add something when I have had a chance to read through all the voluminous stuff. Some people don't know how to be concise. Itsmejudith 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more useful if I contributed to the evidence page or to the workshop? I have some diffs that could go in the evidence. Itsmejudith 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in...[edit]

Hi Hornplease... please check in on the ThoughtCast article for me, and let me know if there's anything else I ought to do to wikify it. I am not sure how to create a single line in between my sections, rather than a double line! Also, I am wondering how to get the title of the article to say ThoughtCast with a capital c rather than lowercase?? That level of editing escapes me, especially as I didn't create the article to start with! Thanks again for your help on this. Jen

Under attack?[edit]

That's an interesting statement. Wikipedia is not a battleground, remember? [12]Hkelkar 12:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WP isnt, but it looks to me like your RfArb is, a little. Hornplease 12:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Well hell. I sent you a coded message asking you to email me and placed it on a page I know would be on your watchlist. But you didn't get it, so whatever.

I was trying to tell you some things about your situation that I thought might help you. I didn't want to blow your cover or mine, but it just didn't work out.

It's all immaterial now because I've emailed someone who has the power to bring the hammer down on this. In case you haven't noticed, this thing extends far beyond your experience. If you're interested, take a look at some of the talk pages of people involved.

Just a quick walk down the trail of interactions reveals a lot. So do user contributions and page histories. The RFAR isn't going to cover it. I've spent two days investigating, and dozens of articles are involved, at the very least.

There are also at least four admins I've seen who are either directly or tacitly participating, if not more. I submit that it's useless to plead your case at this point. If you should decide to investigate on your own, remember that the date stamp on these activities is very important as well.

I simply dont know why you don't have your account email enabled. You could get a web-based email address that reveals nothing about you. If you had such an account attached, Myself and some other people would have offered you support long before this.

In any case, don't worry. It's all out there, thanks to Wikipedia itself. We need help, and I've asked for it. Please be patient, though I understand that's difficult. If we don't get help soon, it's only because people are very busy in real life. But help WILL come, because those folks who have a vested interest in preserving Wikipedia for ALL Wikipedians are being forced to act by the very people involved in this.

If you want details, for heavens sake email me. NinaEliza 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109^Talk 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of India[edit]

Bakasuprman has removed a reference on the grounds that it's Pakistani, and no on wants to read Pakistani books. Do you have the energy to comment? Zora 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Aiyar[edit]

Hi you have removed the bit about Sainik farm.Certainly it is an illegal colony and appears in his lok sabha entry,Regards(Vr 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Partition_of_India#Causes_of_Partition[edit]

Hi Hornplease, I have some questions waiting for you where I hope to settle the futile arguments that are occuring. Please provide your opinion. Thank you Gizza^Chat ^© 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]