User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive17

Proposed findings in this religious conflict

Personally speaking, it appears that User:Bakasuprman, User:BhaiSaab, User:Holywarrior and to a lesser extent User:Dangerous-Boy have had a coming together due to the activities surrounding religious debates at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy and the subsequent activity surrounding the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch. I didn't see any interaction prior to this (correct if wrong), but Bakasuprman and Holywarrior seem to notice one another after an incident at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy, where the talk page descends into off-topic discussion about the wrongs of Hinduism and Christianity - no personal attacks or inflammatory jibes are made, but there are some rather blunt and frank comments about how some users feel about the other religion. After this, User:Subhash bose adds Holywarrior (after made negative comments about Hinduism) to the now deleted User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch/Watch_List, along with a few other people, whom he has already listed on his similar "reminders" section on his talk page. When BhaiSaab nominates the Fundy Watch page for deletion, users from various religious groupings make comments which are inappropriate to the merit/validity of the content, by pointing out the religious biases. Dangerous-Boy recommends Strong Keep without giving a justification, and BhaiSaab takes the unnecessary step of pointing out that Dangerous-Boy called another user on Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy, who was declared as being from a missionary organisation as a "bible-thumper". Later, BhaiSaab notes that Dangerous-Boy had messaged other users regarding the MfD, as is the normal practice in deletion debates where users have been messaged, as was routinely done when the notorious and now banned evangelist User:Jason Gastrich persistently messaged users in the Category:Christian Wikipedians to vote of Christian biographies. Possibly due to the earlier questioning of D-Boy's comment, Bakasuprman declares that BhaiSaab is on a "crusade" against D-Boy and D-Boy questions BhaiSaab's bias in the failed AfD nomination of the Hindu Unity page, and whether BhaiSaab is stalking him. Despite the fact that many administrators are already present on the page, and without discussing or attempting to resolve the matter personally with D-Boy, BhaiSaab takes the unfortunate step of lodging a report at WP:ANI, which given the nature of that board is bound to generate negative publicity for users who are reported there. From my glancing at the contribs, I don't see any evidence that BhaiSaab had been in editing conflicts with the users in question, let alone stalking them (please correct if necessary). Just speaking personally, his username is generally associated with editing Islamic theology type articles or Middle Eastern political-religion material.

• On Monday 7 August, I left a comment on BhaiSaab's talk page (archive 2) suggesting that his recent scrutinising of D-Boy was excessive. There seems to be a ceasefire now. The two users don't edit in the same areas, so regardless of what bad feelings are between them, this shouldn't matter, but hopefully it won't affect their morale towards participating within the community.

BhaiSaab and Bakasuprman later engaged in a revert-war at Indian caste system over the addition and deletion of a section about caste systems amongst Muslims. Both parties cited "vandalism", which was unhelpful and doesn't serve any useful purpose except possibly spitefulness. In fact the section added by Bakasuprman was a copyvio subset of a few websites. A 3RR report against BhaiSaab was dismissed by Stifle, and (aeropagitica) blocked Bakasuprman for the cited reason of "vandalism". In this case it is correct to remove the copyvio pending a rewrite, not the other way around, but the characterisation of "vandalism" is inappropriate and inflammatory.

• Please do not cite "vandalism" unless there is deliberate addition of wrong info, wilful destruction of article content (not POv disputes), addition of nonsensical material, obscene material, etc.

Since then, Bakasuprman has been walking around to various user_talk pages, proclaiming that BhaiSaab is stalking him, that Holywarrior is racist and that the two of them are liars/lying. This is an inappropriate way of lodging a complaint, to claim a character flaw without substantiation. In the case of Holywarrior, I cannot see the foundation for this, as the diffs lodged were regarding the expression of his religious opinions at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy. As stated below, this is what happens when people show their strong opinions towards other religions. Aside from whatever one may feel about Holywarrior's response and behaviour towards Bakasuprman's activities in the last few days, in his questioning of Bakasuprman's barnstars and the ongoing RfC, I can't see that he is being hostile to Hindu editors in their attempts to edit the encyclopedia (excluding the airing of general political and religious opinions which make others uncomfortable) - unlike say for instance User:Anwar saadat's obstructionist voting at Indian RfAs, FACs, FLCs, and trying to delist Indian featured material at any opportunity. As for the complaint that BhaiSaab is stalking him, I cannot see any evidence of BhaiSaab stalking him, interfering with his edits, (the Indian caste system doesn't count as it is a clear copyvio), aside from BhaiSaab's desire to have the last say by responding to all of Bakasuprman's claims. An example of stalking would be the antics by User:Anwar saadat in early May when he decided that in response to the changes to the Ajith Kumar article, he would walk to Hindi film articles edited by User:Zora as well as the Hindutva and Indian cricket team by User:Nobleeagle and revert their edits, for which he was blocked by User:Nichalp.

• Please cite the diffs which are relevant and the quote policies - WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:STALK which have been breached, without using emotive terms. Engaging in launching emotive accusations without providing diffs, constitute personal attacks, as perviously mentioned.
• BhaiSaab has been advised to not to respond unnecessarily and incessantly to Bakasuprman, especially in the case that there are no diffs or evidence presented. (User:Haphar has been blocked for repeatedly behaving in such a manner to User:Subhash bose)
• Given that there are many users from a variety of religious backgrounds and differing opinions, engaging in airing negative personal sentiment about other religions etc, can only have a negative impact in the ability to work colaboratively with one another, and is to be avoided.
• As before, none of the users involved appear to edit the same material, so hopefully regardless of what bad feelings are between them and do not dissipate, this shouldn't matter, but hopefully it won't affect their morale towards participating within the community.

On the MfD, Holywarrior suggests that those involved in the creation of the list ought to be blocked, to which Bakasuprman retorts that Holywarrior uses personal attacks, is anti-Hindu and calls for a block. Personally, I didn't see interaction between the two of them prior to this incident either from a quick glance (Bakasuprman made his first edit on July 23), but the complaints lodged by Bakasuprman regarding Holywarrior's conduct relates to the expression of his religious opinions at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy, which do not constitute personal attacks. What it does show is that the expression of one's negative personal opinions towards other religions, rather than discussing appropriate content in articles will cause ill-will with other users and hamper efforts to co-operate with one another, which is why the public airing of such types of opinions about religion, race and politics are discouraged. Having said that, I don't think that Holywarrior and Bakasuprman edit similar pages at all, as they did not appear to conflict prior to this. Since then, Holywarrior has lodged a personal query, suspecting whether User:Truebaka is a sock of Bakasuprman, awarding himself barnstars. As noted above, there is nopolicy violation regarding self-awarded barnstars, but to publicly express suspicion over a user conduct matter which is irrelevant to formulation of article content borders on paranoia and is not a tactful move - it is likely that if anything, it will result in further development of a siege mentality and erosion of good-will. Personally, I feel that in the current circumstances, as I noted on the RfC, that such a move may not be conducive to getting a fruitful resolution to this conflict - most RfCs are based on a user whose conduct has caused disruption to a wide number of users through their disruptive editing tactics. In this case this is restricted to only two users' attitude towards one another, and is an unnecessary escalation of the conflict in my opinion, especially as user talk page contact between the two users have only taken place in the last three or four days.

• Suggest withdrawal of RfC. Since users do not appear to deal with each other editorially, hopefully, the problems should die off.

Blnguyen | rant-line 08:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. User:Truebaka is not my sock. infact ask him if you want to, (he doesn't know the definition of sock but ask him if he's the same person as me) and he will deny these false allegations. Bakaman_Bakatalk 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that he isn't a sock because socks do not tend to have similar names as they tend to try and get under the system and cheat and vote-stack, etc. Only reincarnated vandals use the same names over and over again in order to irritate and spite users - like User:Armking, User:Armsex, User:Armkong, User:Armsock, User:Armheezeh...etc.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I also made my first edit July 6th, not July 23rd as was incorrectly stated. Bakaman_Bakatalk 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not participated in the RfC, nor do I have any plans to at this point in time. I agree with your summary, except with the following: "Despite the fact that many administrators are already present on the page, and without discussing or attempting to resolve the matter personally with D-Boy, BhaiSaab takes the unfortunate step of lodging a report at WP:ANI, which given the nature of that board is bound to generate negative publicity for users who are reported there" This gives the impression that I lodged the report against D-Boy; I made it against Bakaman, and there was already plenty of discussion with him. Also, as I pointed out earlier WP:Vandalism states knowingly inserting copyrighted material is indeed vandalism - I don't see why there is disagreement over this. If you don't like this part of the policy perhaps you may want to get it changed. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for making the incorrect observation that that you started that thread, it was Timothy Usher, who I have informed about this. I still maintain that using the user talk page was the most appropriate form of communication for discreet resolution (if possible). Secondly, I am not trying to "disagree" with policy but simply advising to use the most uninflammatory language as possible, especially in sensitive issues, it is for your own benefit. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also one more statement: "Dangerous-Boy recommends Strong Keep without giving a justification, and BhaiSaab takes the unnecessary step of pointing out that Dangerous-Boy called another user on Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy, who was declared as being from a missionary organisation as a "bible-thumper". I have not been involved with the Californian Hindu textbook controversy article - my comment was made about D-Boy's statements on the talk page of Fundy Watch, not anywhere else. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's where you got the comment from, but I see it in the other place as well. My comment about your reaction still stands. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior, yourself and Timothy Usher (who vandalized my comments [1], [2] and himself a personal attack specialist [3](anti-Hindu attack ->)[4], and called D-boy a spammer [5] )do not count as discussion. Timothy Usher has only supported BhaiSaab and therefore is a POV source and his "warnings" are void. Also, USer:Tom harrison was solicited by BhaiSaab because of his POV. Tom Harrison disagreed with me on the AfD (his view [6] and my view [7]). He also became hostile when confronted, showing his POV [8]. Bakaman_Bakatalk 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a comment about Timothy's two posts that you mentioned, but don't bring him here please. As for the second part, I initiated the MfD for the Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild so I'm unconvinced that an admin who wants to delete that sort of stuff will become invalidated from interacting with their admin tools. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument is quite nonsensical. I posted the report on personal attack intervention board - I did not request any specific admin to review the case. It just so happened that it was Tom Harrison, so there is no conspiracy here. Tom was not at all "hostile." Please do not misrepresent diffs - Timothy has not called D-boy a spammer nor has he made any anti-Hindu attacks. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course he wasn't, not to you he wasn't .Anyways there is a conflict of interest.Bakaman_Bakatalk

Admins are not prohibited from dealing with editors with whom they have disagreed with in the past. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This was recent. Admins are prohibited from blocking users with whom they had a recent conflict. Bakaman_Bakatalk 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that the MfD alone is a sufficient conflict of interest. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what was the spam solicitation. It was his declaration that Dboy supposedly was a spammer. Bakaman_Bakatalk 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please find Timothy calling him a "spammer." BhaiSaab ^talk 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"User D-Boy has spam solicited support for the page User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch", [9]

"a post to all its participants is inherently spam". Hmm he is accusing D-boy of spamming since D-boy alerted me (and the four other users) to the attack on the FundyWatch page. Bakaman_Bakatalk 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He said "spam solicited"; he didn't say "D-Boy is a spammer." There's a difference. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No there isn't. Saying D-boy solicited spam (Solicit- v - To entice or incite to evil or illegal action)is the exact same thing as accusing him. Bakaman_Bakatalk 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in such large arguments over such small things. It is unhelpful. As I said before, a quiet word would have been the best. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab has been known to harrass people for votes on AfD's. He attacked User:Karl Meier [10] and baited him (when everyone knows what HinduUnity is thanks to the recent blatant censorship by the government) [11]. Karl warned him not to attack him [12] here. Even my "buddy" Hornplease substantiated the notability [13], and I believe you also voted for keep. Bakaman_Bakatalk 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I've said before, calling Hornplease a "buddy" in such a way is unhelpful in these tense times. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing my one "attack" in one AfD to four/five you made on a single AfD. You also say I'm known to do that; please find more examples. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Except you also made attacks in the fundywatch one already documented. I merely responded to your accusations. Anyways D-boy wasn't exactly right in calling people bible-thumpers but on the textbook article, he was perfectly justified. I have better things to do than dig up dirt on a user who does little more than harrass others for different POV's. As Blnguyen stated above USer:Anwaar sadat is a documented anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim wikipedian. Other people referring to him as a "Jihadi" (probably would not my choice of words)are justified since he attacked Netaji (the user) and Hindus on RFC, RFA articles etc. I participated in two others, and didn't need to. If you're going to dig up the anti-Brahminism AfD, you might see that Holywarrior questioned a certain Brahmins knowledge of Hinduism. Its obvious Babub knows much more than Holywarrior about Hinduism, but Holywarrior already has a checkered history, as does Timothy Usher (on probation). Bakaman_Bakatalk 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already dealt with Holywarrior's inappropriate mocking of Babub on that AfD. It looks like he is trying to move on. Meanwhile you two guys are still dragging your feet. I did not say say above that Anwar was a "anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim" - I noted that he had a period when he went and reverted other people's edits to annoy them (stalking), and nothing more. Please keep in mind that at no stage, did I agree that it was OK to call Anwar a "jihadi" - if his edits are inappropriate then explain why, and debate; don't sit there and discredit the other person with personal judgments. I noted that he went around obstructing everything, and not just involving Hindus, but also Christians, Sikhs, atheists, all candidates - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2, a declared Muslim convert, Anwar said something like that Joturner had "issues. Period". He also opposed the List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu despite being a Tamil himself, so I wouldn't read anything into it. Anwar also drinks, according to his userpage. Anwar is on a one month block due to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anwar saadat, and one of the offences his sock committed was calling Netaji an "illiterate hindu fundamentalist" in the edit summaries. The reverse of calling Anwar a "jihadi" will get similar treatment. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Our buddy BhaiSaab is also likes to express his anti-Israel views. [14] and here he deleted facts to push the Palestinian POv [15]. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of BhaiSaab's opinions about the Middle East and that he edits the Middle Eastern contemporary conflict type stuff. As I said earlier, the stuff at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy, while not constituting personal attacks, is likely to cause unease and hinder collaboration as many users have strong negative personal opinions about other religions and WP is has people of all faiths. I don't want to bring in previous stuff in another zone of editing as you are both supposed to be trying to cool off. There's no need to bring Jewish editors in to make things more complicated. BhaiSaab can resolve his past differences if he wants, but I'm not trying to merge together to have a world-wide-wikipedia war. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And for the GOATSE image (I have never actually seen it (the image), it is perverted) he used his bait tactic on a user [16]. He accused a user of being anti-Muslim [17],. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this quite hilarious. I noticed that you're trying to escalate this: [18], [19], [20], [21]. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Escalate this? These users harbor grievances against you, kind of like Holywarrior and Timothy Usher. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In this comment and the chunk of comments above, I have told you that it is in your best interests to not use rhetoric like "buddy" in a denigratory contest, and ask rhetorical questions like "Escalate this?" and a mild prod like "quite hilarious" and rhetorical questions like in that GOATSE diff. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I talked about an amnesty/ceasefire is because I'm well aware of the existence of a lot of testy comments and inappropriate dialogue, and instead of condemn you heavily, or "rank" or "rate" the severity of the inappropriateness of your conduct is that this was meant to be a learning experience, to have a think about how to resolve problems using different manners of dialogue that would increase your rapport with one another as editors, and that way to increase your productivity as editors here. There is not really a grievous stand-alone example of extreme bad behaviour, so I have tried to avoid a block, but mainly lots of continual scrapping and an apparent desire to always have the last word. As I have said before, such scrapping is bad. I have pointed out the situations where I feel that you can employ better and more diplomatic and productive methods of debate, focusing on article matter and not the religious ideology of users, and situations on AfD debates where unnecessary allegations of bad faith have made the situation worse. I have reached a stage where I feel that if you can't see anything useful in what I have said which you can use for self-analysis to modify your behaviour, instead of being defiant and continually tagging the other user, then there is no further point in my repeating it, due to your continued mutual niggling of one another. Holywarrior seems to have moving on somewhat, do you want to continue getting irritated in this way? As I have already said, I am offering an "amnesty" so to speak to encourage you to change your style and move on, but if you continue in this way, then I won't be trying to point things out and mould your dialogue, debating and grievance technique anymore, I will simply use the block facility to stop further inflammation when the need arises. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He has started editing the Godhra riots page, and Hindu related articles. He cited the guidelines, yet did not allow himself to be placed under those guidelines. Tell him to get off India/Hindu pages. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you owned those pages. I don't know where you get the idea that I didn't "allow myself to be placed under those guidelines." BhaiSaab ^talk 22:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior again

Holywarrior and Yeditor have been harrassing me on wiki again. (Yes the same "blatant Hindu vandal" calling Yeditor). He left 4 warnings for no reason. I removed the criticism of Upanishads because as per wiki nom, there is not a criticsm section on the main article of a major religious text. I removed the tags citing harrassment, because it looks like a leopard does not change its spots. As for BhaiSaab, w/e, don't really care about him now, got worse problems. Here are the warnings for vandalism. [22], [23], [24],[25]. I cited reasons for removing the text I supposedly "vandalized". Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleared this up yesterday I think. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One "defamamtion" of Holywarrior was when I told a user who attacked him on the textbook talk page, to keep the moral upper hand in a debate with him. I told the IP address not to make personal attacks (even though I agree with what the IP said) then holywarrior acted in bad faith and said [26]. I accused dab of making personal attacks (he's known to do that) but when I tried to assist a user, Holywarrior bacame hostile. He is using his sparring partner Yeditor to vandalize Hinduism pages, and putting strings of unwarranted warnings on talk pages of at least 3 people (me, Bharatveer, Netaji) probably more when "blatant Hindu vandals" see the crap they put on Hinduism pages. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

the vandal tag

I noticed you told me to stop handing out vandalism tags. I placed the last one on Timothy Ushers page before I saw your message. BhaiSaab provoked me to do that. Also, I believe BhaiSaab's "warning" was unwarranted. Can I remove it? I cited the reason I "vandalized" Netaji's talk page, because netaji did not vandalize the Indian caste system page. Also I will not respond to his bait above the "Proposed findings" section. You are right, he is now involved in a content dispute with myself and Netaji and I'm not going to give a reason for an admin to block me. I have tried to patch up my relationship with Ragib for said reason and am working to build a contributing relationship with Thunderboltz and Rama's arrow (both of whom should be admins).Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab has not listened to your words [27]. Take action, I have not responded to his baiting, nor have I placed any more tags, but I continue to be hounded for this. Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's okay for you to remove every single warning from your userpage - that's why I issued it to you. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the action of issuing both of you with a short 15min block because I felt that your issuing of robot-messages to each other and warning-warring was inappropriate, as I had noted earlier. You were having a productive discussion on article content, so I was concerned that this could be damaged by a possible silly escalation in this warning-warring. I think in future, I'll take the responsibility of deleting the appropriate warnings myself. THanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

I removed the warnings I made on his talk page [28] and also removed his and Holywarriors warnings on my talk page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

He is now invading the India realted articles. I believe you told him to mind his own business, he forced Netaji to go 3RR and he violated 3RR on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh himself. He asked me if I owned the articles when I cited that you told him to not engage in disputes with me again. I believe in archive 17 you stated that he has not been interfering with my edits. Now you have clear evidence he has. Anyways, I wouldn't care about his edits on the 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision but the RSS is a totally Hindu organization. Can you ask him why he is undoing Netaji's edits? I would take amnesty but only if BhaiSaab stops messing with the Hindu/India based articles and sticks to his area of expertise. As per your recommendation, I removed the npa warnings on his page which were a response to his vandalism templates. I would find an indian admin, but Bhadani treated the case like a hot potato and gave it to you, using very vague language for justification. Rama's arrow and deepujoseph are good, but they unfortunately are not admins.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab is "invading the India-related articles"?

"I would take amnesty but only if BhaiSaab stops messing with the Hindu/India based articles and sticks to his area of expertise."

Wikipedia articles do not - rather, should not - "belong" to any one nationality or religion, regardless of subject matter. Such dialogue is a case study in Why Wikipedia Won't Work.Timothy Usher 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you Timothy Usher, backing up your sparring partner. Anyways I used the article as evidence to show Blnguyen that BhaiSaab has been undoing our edits. I don't really care for your views on the matter as you always unconditionally back up BhaiSaab. I'm sure Blnguyen is smart enoguh to see when someone disobeys him.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking into it to see how it develops. If it appears that activity may be motivated by dubious reasons rather than a genuine wish to improve content, then he will get into trouble. Probably it would be smart for him to stay away for a while in the interests of goodwill, instead of taking up this new interest, but there is nothing wrong with it to just begin with. If he just did straight reverts for the hell of it and didn't explain when asked like Anwar did to Nobleeagle then things are clearcut. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab has also been blocked [29] for edit-warring with Netaji and myself and violating 3RR. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Apropos Subhash's legal notice on my page

Hi, I was away for a week and just saw your comment in my talk page. It would seem that LkAdvani has changed his userid. When I used the term 'libelous' to describe a personal attack against myself in his talk page I did not mean it in a legal sense.

From Dictionary

Libel \Li"bel\ (l[imac]"b[e^]l), n. [L. libellus a little book, pamphlet, libel, lampoon, dim. of liber the liber or inner bark of a tree; also (because the ancients wrote on this bark), paper, parchment, or a roll of any material used to write upon, and hence, a book or treatise: cf. F. libelle.] [1913 Webster]

1. A brief writing of any kind, esp. a declaration, bill, certificate, request, supplication, etc. [Obs.] --Chaucer. [1913 Webster]

2. Any defamatory writing; a lampoon; a satire. [1913 Webster]

The legal definition:

3. (Law) A malicious publication expressed either in print or in writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

Was not meant here. Therefore, there is no threat of legal action (I know that this is not allowed on wikipedia). I hope you understand why it was necessary as, at best, it was a blatant personal attack.Netaji 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Blgnuyen, Even after four days your note to User:Subhash has not been complied with.The legal notice of Libel is still on my userpage and I have had no apologies either.What are the Wikipedia's policies in this regard.I would suggest the user to be penalised for continued violations of WP guidelines and harassment of other users.TerryJ-Ho 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bose already cleared it up. He made no legal threat.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my claim to blnguyen that it is not a legal threat. If he disagrees, let him tell me and I'll remove the statementNetaji 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it again and it states that Netaji would report you (Lkadvani) for defaming him? So he is stating that he will report you for committing a legal offense against you? Does that imply a counter-legal threat on the part of Netaji. It seems ambiguous and probably damaging to both of you so perhaps deleting both the irrelevant stuff on Lkadvani's page and that comment by Netaji would be the most convenient, rather than an escalation. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

I responded in my talk page.Netaji 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy

Since you must be tired from all the India disputes, I thought you might want to try some gulab jamun.

Enjoy

Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should baka not be warned for this

I had issued defwarn to Baka for [30] and similar edits.he promptly removed it.Plz look into the matter.Holy|Warrior 08:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I merely told the IP guy not to make personal attacks. Then in a vio of AGF Holywarrior went on a rant on how I accused dab of making personal attacks [31]. trying to discredit me. I told him to watch out just because the IP seemed to be a newbie and therefore, I dind't want Holywarrior taking advantage of a newbie to get him blocked for an exorbitant amount of time, especially when the newbie spoke the truth. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a blatant personal slur and it is not acceptable. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Baka need to explain why he is following and reverting my edits to the version written by Blatant Vandal.Holy|Warrior 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hate attack

Please see Bharatveers [edit sumry]. Is this not personal attack?Yeditor 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate, I'll talk to him. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Yeditor wasn't listening when I told him to take rants like these [32] to Chowk.com. Chowk is a better place for Yeditor. He will be welcomed with open arms at that site.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Infact I don't appreciate his hatred of Brahmins, being one myself and fail to see how a community that was 3.5% of the population (in the best times) could have oppressed the majority of people for 4000 years. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)