User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Rumpelstiltskin223!

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, but you can click here to see how you can avoid making some common ones.

If you are still stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Or, you can join the newcomer's help chat room, where volunteers can answer your questions.

If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user, such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! --Werdan7^{T @} 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

Thanks for reverting vandalism on the page.Bakaman 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Goa Inquisition. Please discuss the matter on the talk page and reach consensus before editing the page again. Thank you. --Tango 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

3-revert rule

You have violated the 3-revert rule on China as an emerging superpower. As for sources removed, I removed the statement relating to those sources and I had given my reason for removing them. That's not vandalizing. 75.73.8.206 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated 3 revert rule. You have. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You have also violated this rule with regard to some of my revisions without discussion until after the fact. Then you've played the 3-revert rule game on my reversions to have your way. This is dishonest and a sign of weakness, not just of your POV edits, but also of the Wikipedia system. Good job. Tmangray 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry for doubt

its not for propaganda of any non-notable person.i am sorry it seems you are not reading indian newspapers.anyway, slowly more sources shall be added.

so , i am removing your tag. bye, Latasupriya 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

are you non-truster

you seem to be taking doubt all time.

you are advised to visit the offices of newspapers and other sources cited here so as you satisfy yourself.

i am not interested in wasting my time in doing some work for free for wikipidea which i am doing by putting this informartion.you may remove the page if you don't want dissemination of information.

rgds 59.144.181.248 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubts

Hi,

Where are u from?

Sorry, edit any page as u wish......

Only take care while posting or editing articles where the matter is highly explosive ethnically and politically and invloves different sides and viewpoints.

There should be healthy discussion anywhere..

Thanks n regards,

Bdebbarma

Please stop...

... reverting other users edits at random. This user vandalized one page. His edits since then have all been correct. I ask that you look at edits before reverting them. KazakhPol 05:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - he is becoming disruptive. I no longer vouch for him. Good night. KazakhPol 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not an administrator. However, I suggest contacting Academic Challenger. His assistance is usually prompt. If he is unavailable I know SlimVirgin is currently editing, but I would caution against any interaction with this user. KazakhPol 05:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from AC

I don't have time to really investigate at the moment, but you should ask other administrators at WP:AN/I. I will be back in about a half hour and will then be around for the next several hours. Academic Challenger 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps AIV?Bakaman 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not AIV. This is too complicated. Anyway, he appears to have left, and as long as he stays gone, let him go in peace and let's concentrate on something else. Let me know if he comes back. Academic Challenger 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please don't break 3RR except to revert *blatant* vandalism. This wasn't. As the old proverb says, if it is blatant, someone else will help, so you won't need to break 3RR anyway William M. Connolley 12:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Star Trek - no personal attacks please

Regarding your "lack of sincerity" comment, please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. At the time I added {{Original research}} the article had a grand total of zero reliable sources, as I mentioned in this edit comment. The article had a link to a web page that amounts to a blog, and another [http://www.squidy.150m.com/snlshat.html link] to a SNL transcript, which is not a source of any kind for the criticisms in the article. Your claims of "lack of sincerity" are NOT appreciated. Please see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Weregerbil 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

India as an emerging superpower

Seems my browser (Opera) is playing up! Not sure why it looked like that for that page though. Anyway thanks for correcting the non-problem!

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 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline of Buddhism in India

Would you care to elucidate why you reverted the article? You can use the talk page on the article for that. Would mind reverting yourself so that we can do this amicable and take up all the issues one by one instead of joining into an existing dispute. Hopefully you can be a mediator to resolve the dispute.--Tigeroo 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. If you feel that the article somewhere says the opposite let me know and we can change that. It is clearly noted what the sources are, opinions of academics on those sources sa well. The academic version is that "we don't know" these sources tell us this, we think they may have been exaggerations. Some also accept that there must be a grain of truth to it, some that there is none. Please check the diff, however the revert covers everything but this issue, so if this is your concern, then undo your edit and make a specific edit that we can converse over.--Tigeroo 13:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can improve the Thapar sections. Please do so. I have not read her work, just looking at what other people have put in and cited as her's.--Tigeroo 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Greek kingdom

Hello Rumpelstiltskin. I just wanted to remember you that you should always assume good faith; when you wrote in your revert summary "rv bad faith deletion", you violated this, and you also violated WP:CIV. But I appreciate that you did understand at the end the point I was making, and brought the requested sources. I've made some rewording you will note, to make it comply with WP:WTA; words like "claim", "eminent" and scare quotes should be avoided whenever possible. Ciao,--Aldux 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

polemicist

It obviously is OR.Bakaman 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl give some detail

i can't figure out the double standards what i think is you were talking about cold blooded muerder i think so.but here is a lot prppognada withut any evidence this was also removed there are hundred of cold blooded muerder in the region why specfiy only one.What evidence is there of even this group being invloved in Delhi attack i have also visited that area myself it is almost impossible for an attack as such and there are also evidence that Indian officals did Knew every detail of such a attack and even this was informed to Assemebly.so don't just copy what ever the media says and also check for netural media as was the case in refering to russia in the article the source was proper for refer here, as it was netural one also.User talk:Yousaf465

Well, it's not more netural to call them Partisan because the are themselves not netural as was the case in the war of 1965 when bbc even announced the capture of Lahore! ANd the most recent example is of this article IAF where during the conflict they didn't accept the crashing of two of their aircraft (i'm not talk of of Indian air force), bcz there were no Reliable Sources except that video shown by hezboallah at it's Tv it was denied the Reliable Sources status.Now Airplane become Helicopter.Pl read this carefully as aircraft mena both will airplane means plane.O.k you may revert the hu article but case is differnet here.User talk:Yousaf465

You are going correctly now.the problem is wikipedia is going to much media bias and also geo bias.like as as mention earlier the hezbollah's tv even showing a video evidence was denied Reliable Sources while some hebrew newspaper without transltion was imposed here.User talk:Yousaf465

read references please !

Please read references and then add what even you want. What you did is called vandalism here. If you dispute this, have your comments in the talk page,and dont make this as your personal BLOG !--Iwazaki 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

what ??? could you please elaborate what is not civil here ?? I just asked you to read the references before making any edits..Once again, this is not your personal home page nor your personal blog. So unless you dont have evidences dont do any changes to my article. further, dont make unnecessary comments,such as civility at my talk page,As I have and will remain civil regardless of what you say here.

--Iwazaki 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time here. Discuss issues in the talk page of the article. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

Well I ,with my capacity as a editor, here have the foremost right to question your duplicity.What you have engaged here is pushing your POV ..And again remember my talk page is not your BLOG.Please dont write nonsense in my talk page as regardless of what you right i know how to behave here. And, please don't make my talk page a soapbox. If you have anything proper to write, pls do it in the article talk page.--Iwazaki 08:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

dont make my talk page a Soapbox

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. .My edit summary [1] is a not a attack on you, as you have clearly engaged in "vandalism". once again please stop this.wikipedia is not your BLOG !!--Iwazaki 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retaliatory post of no merit.Rumpelstiltskin223 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne may be attempting to circumvent the system. It looks like he may be attempting to create categories without giving the appearance of adding categories by using red links. See the discussion at WP:ANI. Dr. Submillimeter 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

P.N. Oak

Dear Rupelstiltskin, please cease using popups repeatedly to revert legitimate edits. It interferes with the normal editing process. Please read the edit sumaries and see the Talk page of the article. Paul B 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, vandalism is not defined as "removing a large segment of text", especially when that very text has also been removed in the past by two serious editors and has been discussed on the talk page. That is a thorough misuse of language. The deletion of large chunks of inapropriate text is normal practice, as you should know. The rext is not sourced to anything but a Hindutva press which does not meet the criteria of reliability. Paul B 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's another misleading argument, since the text is not used as evidence of their viewpoint but as evidence of support by independent researchers for Oak's conclusions. Evidence of a viewpoint would be something like: "Some Christian fundamentalists believe Hinduism to be a false religion inspired by the devil." (ref). If someone wrote "Some researchers have supported the view that Hinduism is a false religion inspired by the devil" (ref), that would be inapproriate. A whole section presenting such "evidence" from Evangelical Christian publishers would be rightly deleted from a page about Hinduism. Paul B 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insult people !

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User_talk:RaveenS#Sinhala_massacres, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Iwazaki 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you. Iwazaki 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Puh-Leeze Rumpelstiltskin223 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Brother, I consider them civilian massacres both the SL gov and LTTE does a good dose of them. As I am primarily here to improve content about SL Tamils, it will look like I am only writing about SL gov massacres. But when LTTE kills Tamils, I will also write about them.

But overall, dont take anything personally, dont react to personal attacks, carefully document them. Warn people using correct policies such as WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPOV, WP:RS...etc as soon as you seem them in the place you see them. Once you have a collection including evidence about sock puppetry then you can take it to Admin to get the person banned. It is that easy but most of the time those who usually offend change their behaviour that is if they can read and write English.

About the problem you seem to have with User:Iwazaki please ignore the messages if in your opinion they are incorrect and archive them,(I can help you with that) and let it go but if you think that he is following you around in your edits, you can take him to Admin regarding Wiki starking after appropriately warning him. Take careRaveenS 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WT:HNB#Attention_everyone

Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please always fill in the summary field

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! — Sebastian 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui

I did some formatting for you, and I plan on adding some more diffs from each of the articles, particularily the History of Pakistan one, a bit later. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Can you just double-check nothing is factually wrong because of the changes I made? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

request for unblock

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Siddiqui http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=98594997#Meatpuppetry_and_tag-team_edit-warring http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=98601234#User:Siddiqui_.26_User:HamzaOmar_reported_by_User:Rumpelstiltskin223_.28Result:.29

It is clear to any party that 3 user accounts have been edit-warring and "tag-team" reverting the articles in question. Their edits were extremely hatemongering and were meant to spread communalism and ethnic hatred (and were mostly unsourced vandalism, especially History of India, where they deliberately refactored the edits into existing text put there by productive editors). I think that it is unfair that I am blocked while these (obvious) sockpuppets could loophole their way into making tendentious edits that rendered well-written articles completely useless.

See the edits (in quick succession, no less) [1] [2] [3] [4] I think that these are extenuating circumstances that do not warrant a block for me as ai was fixing their obvious vandalism. This is based on teh fact that they edit-warred with several other users in Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, which got protected. Then, in order to extract revenge, they went on to make inflammatory edits in the articles Christianity in India and History of India (see history page and contribs of User:Siddiqui and compare with User:HamzaOmar and user:AliHussain for further evidence) Rumpelstiltskin223 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I can prove that the users have misrepresented sources and deliberately been tendentious in their edits, with a pattern and intent to disrupt, then would you reconsider? Rumpelstiltskin223 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions [5] [6] made on January 5 2007 to Christianity in India, History of India

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.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Srikeit 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

Rumpelstiltskin223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The problem was that the users in question were committing some fairly rampant vandalism by using 3RR-avoiding sock puppets. Please see the links to checkuser and ANI post below that explains the situation

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but your opinions and/or the checkuser background of those users whom you are reverting have absolutely no bearing on your obligation to follow the 3 revert rule. -- alphachimp 08:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

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.