.It will be very helpful in resolving this edit dispute. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted the description paragraph under the article "KAUL" in wiki, calling it rubbish. However, this discription is not only close but quite apt (even though its generalising).
When you delete an article w/o prior discussion, it shows that you are not open to new ideas / concepts.
You may share your opinion / any other point of view. If you disagree, kindly sight examples.
Hi Tripping Nambiar,
There is massive vandalism taking place on the page Knanaya. despite references from many works the passages are constantly being vandalised and pov tag is put up without any references being provided. An editor first put up text as anonymous without references and now with a new sock puppet is again reverting to the unreferenced pov text written as anonymous. Please help this page. thanks Vagab (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i was wondering if you are interested in cleaning up the KNM page from vandalising extremists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeblckw (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tripping Nambiar,
Someone has added Kodavas n Bunt communities as Kshatriyas.
My opinion is they are not kshatriya communities.
Can you plz confirm whether these two are kshatriya communities are not.
Hi,
thanks for ur intervene correcting ab Kodavas n Bunts.
(sorry earlier my login was not noted due to timeout issue) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianprithvi (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are editors who are so much bent on propagating false legends that they have gone on to create a new page on Saint Thomas Christians under a very different title (Malankara Church). This is done in order to avoid being detected and so avoid from being edited. This could be done by some editors who had earlier vandalized the pages on Saint Thomas Christians and syrian malabar nasrani. They have copied everything from these two pages and have added their POV nonsense of brahmin families on the new page called Malankara Church. This page needs to be merged back into its original source of saint thomas christians. This is extreme vandalism and this has to be checked or else all the efforts would be waste. thanks Vagab (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nambiar,
thnx for handling the Kathri vandal in kshatriya wiki. I think all the Khatri vandals r by sock puppet of same guy. he has repeated for more than 10 times.
Plz report to admin he continues to vandal.
I don't see it. Is the text you're quoting from the Dravidian languages article or some other article? (Apologies if I was wrong.) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tripping Nambiar I've moved the recent section added to a more appropriate section in the article. Also, most this data is from Britannica that is sourced from sources, which are over 100 years old and out of date (some of the sources are bias & a have a negative propaganda context) and need to be reviewed & edited thoroughly before remaining in the article. For the meanwhile I've moved them to the appropriate section. Stay well. Thanks.--Historian info (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friend. Let me first say I really appreciate your help with article so thank you and well done. However, friend we must always remember when we are using sources, which are 100 years old, and from the British Empire that they usually are not neutral and the political propaganda must be taken out of them before we put them on wikipedia. They must be neutral; most British Empire sources, which are 100 years old, are heavily anti south Asian and portray South Asian as primitive and inferior. Finally, I like to say again I really appreciate your help with article so thank you and well done. P.S. Keep an eye out for vandals. The article is semi protected for now but when it expires the vandal will be back, we must protect it. Stay well.--Historian info (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You removed the confusing tag, I didn't because this sentence is confusing for me also: "This event included the caste Hindu priest at the temple." What does it mean? Can you rephrase the sentence? Thanks. GDibyendu (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent comment on the Zakir Naik talk page was notable. It would be helpful if you could put in more support and ensure that the article remains balanced, by restating your viewpoint on the talk page. Thanks - Agnistus (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
instead of intelligent debate and collaboration towards an optimal phrasing, your stubborn revert warring resulted in the entire Hinduism article being tagged as disputed. Not the way to go. --dab(𒁳) 09:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"reinstating your sources"? "your" sources are partly fine, partly worthless. I have no objection to quoting the former. My objection is to the statement in Wikipedia's voice. Hinduism isn't an "oldest religion" in any meaninful sense. The notion may still have some notability, and if you can show that "Hinduism is the oldest religion" is a notable meme, we can attribute it to the best source you can come up with. No problem. Certainly not in the article lead, though, and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice of course. We don't state "George W. Bush is an evil moron" in the aritcle lead, even if a majority of people would probably agree with that notion. That's because we are an encyclopedia, not a blog. dab(𒁳) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were my sources..... Trips (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into CPI(M) article and found that it is completely one sided. To restore the NPOV I tried to add 'Controversies and allegations' section. But a gang of people who work in co-ordination delete it as soon as I update it. Lokking at the history I also observed that a number of authors who tried to add sections or references critical to CPI(M) were banned and their contributions removed.
This gang of people are vandalizing all the articles on Indian political parties and right now I am in an edit war with them. Can you please help.
Hi, I tried to remove some POV,,unreferenced claims and politically motivated allegations in RSS article. Relata refero has reverted my edits. I have asked him for a debate on why he reverted my edits.Can you please join the debate if it happens. Otherwise try to moderate the topic.Sindhian (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silly vengeful block, tsk tsk. Does the other party get a 3RR ban for three reverts?. Trips (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR blocks don't apply for three reverts, only four or more. You clearly violated policy by making four reverts. This is not a vengeful block; I'm not pro-Bhindranwale. If you looked at my contributions, you'll see I've taken a neutral stance in writing that article. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, anyway make sure that fanatic user:Singh6 does not have a free run of the Khalistan article. Also I believe user:Relata refero has reverted me more than 3 times, and now an anon IP has been created for the sole purpose of reverting again. Would appreciate if you look into it. Trips (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just started going through Singh6's recent contributions. RR reverted three times in 24 hour time period. The latest IP edit was by banned editor Kuntan. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sorry I meant Bhindranwale, not Khalistan. Singh6 seems better behaved on Khalistan. Trips (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the Hinduism article is in a mess. It was recommended as a good article and I have appealed that. I also also am not able to edit it. Are you ? I have registered email on Wiki can you please send me a mail. Sindhian (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you made this edit in Kerala page. Evidence was proposed in the article talk page to show that Mizoram has a slighlty higher literacy rate than Kerala as per Government of India 2005-2006 statistics. Thus I changed "most" to "one of the most". Please look at those references and discuss in the talk page if you have concerns. Docku (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert yourself or face the consequences. Worse, you have started a revert-war, blanking content without giving any justification whatsoever on talk. dab(𒁳) 15:14, 14 July 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).
Added content explained in edit summaries which was reverted, which was later explained on talk, but was responded to with personal attacks and accusations rather than anything addressing the content.
Decline reason:
Edit Warring is harmful to the encyclopedia. You are entitled to your opinion, so is he. Please reach an agreement before editing, next time. — -- lucasbfrtalk 05:58, 15 July 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.
Actually it appears that it is you who does not have a clue about certain topics as you don't even know what a hypothesis is [9] here's the Wikipedia article for reference: Hypothesis. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think before editing. Read carefully, the context was that Indigenous Aryans is a notion that includes assumptions from number of hypothesis, rather than a single hypothesis, which I agreed with, the issue was never about what constitutes a hypothesis.
Sigh*, the consensus building process is going to be that much harder with Bachmann and his WP:OWNing multiple accounts, in addition to a few others who revert on default anything previously reverted by Bachmann without thinking. All off my revert blocks are the result of lack of consensus with the same editor. Trips (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I apologize for my comments which were out of line. I am interested in this topic, however sterile revert warring is a bad habit that I have always carried with me. In the future I will make sure to discuss any disagreements with you and I am sure we can come to an amicable agreement. The offensive edit summary which you referred to was made out of frustration with an editor who repeatedly disrupted a page and would not list to talk page consensus which was for the material to not be included. It does not reflect my views, just my anger at the time. I hope that we can move past this, and continue on much better terms. Regards, Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Relata refero is not a second account of Dbachmann, saying so hurts your credibility. However, I agree that he comes off as very aggressive in disputes. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's because of the personalities you interact and watch over a period when you realize two editors are one and the same with different watchlists. Closely monitoring their contribution lists will also show you further proof. Trips (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that it is undue weight to have Witzel's identifications as in the lead as opposed to the others mentioned in the body? Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I do, I believe that is in accordance with WP policy.Trips (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, they really aren't. I'm telling you this to help you. Faulty accusations of sock puppety really hurt your case when dealing with the administrators. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if your really want to be right on something so badly, how about you try to find a topic you actually know something about? Surely you must have some area of expertise? Perhaps you have an area of expertise in your job? It is really a waste of everyone's time to pretend you know better in a topic you don't know the first thing about, such as ancient history or linguistics. Correct me, but I don't suppose you've even the most basic academic training in these areas? --dab(𒁳) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said of yourself, actually. You're not an academic, you just put a lot of your leisure time into WP and begin to feel possessive about your edit content. I only make relatively minor edits to topics of interest, so my impact is less. Cheers Trips (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourceddefamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Sonia Gandhi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Relata refero (disp.) 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions first. What were my previous warnings, and where is it kept in track of. What was the defamatory material? Do you get warnings too for adding defamatory material for politicians like Narendra Modi?Trips (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
records of your previous warnings, and of your stubborn, incorrigible behaviour in violation of Wikipedia policy, is right on this talkpage. You have just about used up the slack that is usually cut for single-topic pov-pushers. dab(𒁳) 08:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of edit warring, discuss the issue in article talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Mitanni. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. "idiot" is not a proper way to address other editors, especially in edit summariesBMW(drive) 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regret it already, nothings fully personal on the net anyway, unless it is between people who know each other. Trips (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your letters on the talk page of Saint Thomas Christians.
Since the days of the Portuguese, stories regarding the first century origin and aristocratic beginning began circulating widely among the Kerala Christians. Later on this articulated tradition, got deep rooted among the Christians of Kerala. They supported the first century origin with some mystifying stories like the Brahmin conversions, churches built by St. Thomas, names of families converted. This article is a continuation of that. I doubt whether it is worth editing this article. There is no guarantee that the editing will be left there long.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to Trips
Pl see my response to your comments on my Talk Page.
Please don't delete any portion from the article "Bunt Community". The Information presented is based on original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.252.150 (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[== This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive] edits. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.252.150 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have engaged in revert war here. You have violated WP:3RR. Please self-revert or you may be blocked. Anwar (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have engaged in revert war here too. You have violated WP:3RR. Please self-revert or you may be blocked. Anwar (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of the block is 96 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:21, 13 August 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).
there have not been more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, please check
Decline reason:
[10], [11], [12], [13]. Looks like more than 3 to me. There are more too. Edit warring is disruptive, and when this block expires, please don't do it. Use the talk page to discuss disputed changes.— Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 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.
[14] is obviously not a revert. Please spend more than 2 seconds when reviewing and enforcing blocks. Trips (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you added that text to the page before, or it magically appeared, then somebody else must have added it and you then reverted it. Also, when a user is clearly edit warring, such as you did, it's easy to review blocks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a revert, which makes 4 inside 24 hours. Quite apart from all the other edit-warring you and Anwar were doing, which would be more than enough to block both of you even if neither had violated 3RR. And you both did. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating Arundhati Roy,I need your help ,As we all know that Arundhati is frequently crating controversies by issuing public Anti India statements like Kashmir . I am updating her profile regualrly just regarding her as "Controversial" but one user "Zencv" is continiously removing my work and now threatening me to suspend me from Wikiperdia Editing,Please suggest what to do how can i fight for the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider your this edit certainly unreasonable because you removed reliable source without using any edit summary. United States Department of State is RS. If you believe there is any question regarding source, discuss in talk page or in edit summary in future before reverting again. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do one favour the same persons who are removing your words from the "Orissa communal violence" are removing my words from "arundhati_roy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundhati_Roy and "sanddep_pandey" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Pandey who are giving frequently Anti india ,Anti hindu , pro pakistani and pro terrorists statements and statements favoring kashmiri Separatists in public.This is tarnishing over country's image in the world
Please help me out. you are free to take my help in any such issues.
Raulmisir (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to start another revert-war? My addition to your revert is warranted: you know these statements are true, and denying them shows you to be too partisan for an encyclopedic project.Drmies (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tripping Nambiar
I am somewhat intrigued by your edits on the Kshatriya article . As it is principaly not my approach to delete content referenced or un referenced from articles , an edit war is not my intention . But it is appears that your edits concerning Khatris are too concentrated in isolation considering content on the rest of the article.
To begin with, for example have you considered viewing the articles on other groups that are listed .Most of them lack references to support for being on the Kshatriya article , why many of them do not even have a ref section . Therefore my question to you is-
are you interested in improving the Kshatriya article cumulatively ?,
or is your single minded focus on one group ,
because if this is the case then it might be construed to be a personal issue rather than scholastic
Next your reference from Mark Juergensmeyer about Khatris is incomplete without considering what he has to say about this himself .This is also the case with another ref you have provided ,because in that case the same book has another quote completely at variance to the one quoted by you
I will ofcourse come to these specific issues later , once we have this dialogue going .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trips response 1 Its nothing personal. Its just a troll who initially kept placing the community in the article. I have contributed significantly towards the article previously, but I tend to believe in EB over some opportunistic troll who tries to make his community look better on WP. That is not without precedent. I assure you to check the references again. All sentences can be found, in fact I can find more references rather easily if prompted. Have a good day. Trips (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intothefire response 2:
For the sake of clarity lets discuss this here and not on two pages
Thankyou for your quick response , but would you please respond to the specific questions in my earlier post
Question a)To begin with, for example have you considered viewing the articles on other groups that are listed in the article .Most of them lack references to support for being on the Kshatriya article , why many of them do not even have a ref section .?
If you have not gone through these other pages or that the non referenced material does not bother you then my second question in my earlier post was
Question b) Therefore my second question to you was
are you interested in improving the Kshatriya article cumulatively ?,
or is your single minded focus on one group ,
because if this is the case then it might be construed to be a personal issue rather than scholastic
As there doesent seem to be a single yardstick for all the material .
Would appreciate a specific response to these issues .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tripps response 2
Yup, I have gone through every community listed on the page. The large number of them constitute Rajput clans who do not need references. I have looked up the ones that look weird or out of place, and removed them if references state otherwise. I'd like the Kshatriya article to be as accurate as possible. Trips (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intothefire response 3
a) No my friend you have not even cared to view these articles with the links provided on the Kshatriya page because
i)At least 9 of the wikipedia articles pertaining to groups mentioned on the Kshatriya page do not even have a Ref sectiuon till today leave alone citations
ii)Another 8 of the wikipedia articles pertaining to groups mentioned on the Kshatriya page do not have a citation for Kshatriya .
iii)Therefore when you say Yup, I have gone through every community listed on the page , I am afraid you have not gone through these pages .
iv)Whats more the article on · Malayala Kshatriyas - an article you have yourself extensively contributed to no citations to Kshatriya .
v)Next your statement The large number of them constitute Rajput clans who do not need references. My friend this statement does not behove a serious wikipedia editor , because the premise then is that you are the arbitrator and not wikipedia convention .
In view of the above it does seem that your edits on Khatri seem to apply a special yardstick .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intothefire Response 4
Awaiting your response to the above specific issue .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Intothefire (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intothefire Respone 5
Well also wish to check with you if you have may be the same as the following users .
No, I have never used alternate accounts. Wow, all that reasoning just to convince me that you do believe that I shouldn't have added those cited statements on Khatri. I wish I had as much spare time on my hands. Good day to you. Trips (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intothefire Response 6:
a) Please do not be sarcastic as you have been in Tripps Response 3 ,let us conduct this discussion courteously .
We are discussing an issue related to an article to which you have contributed extensively .As regards your innuendo to me about having as much spare time , it does not contribute in any way to constructively take forward the specific issue we are discussing .
b)In "Intothefire Response 2" I asked you if have you had viewed the articles on other groups that are listed in the Kshatriya article as most of them lack references to support for being on the Kshatriya article .To which you replied in
"Tripps response 2"-Yup, I have gone through every community listed on the page. The large number of them constitute Rajput clans who do not need references.
This answer was Demonstrably fallacious because as I pointed out in my response
"Intothefire response 3 points i) and ii) that 9 of the articles lacked even a reference section while another 8 lacked related citation problems . That makes 17 articles with citation and ref gaps . My friend there is a glaring gap between your answers then and the facts as cited
c)Next please ref to my points v) of Intothefire response 3-viz and I quote
"Next your statement The large number of them constitute Rajput clans who do not need references. To which I responded
"My friend this statement does not behove a serious wikipedia editor , because the premise then is that you are the arbitrator and not wikipedia convention"
This is a patently dismal logic you have stated . I have not received any specific response to this either
Which brings me back to my question to you from Intothefire response 2 I quote Question b) Therefore my second question to you was
are you interested in improving the Kshatriya article cumulatively ?,
or is your single minded focus on one group ,
because if this is the case then it might be construed to be a personal issue rather than scholastic
As there doesent seem to be a single yardstick for all the material .
Would appreciate a specific response to these issues .
Regret you did not accurately respond to this charge (with counter facts to back up your own ) which I made and corroborated with incriminating evidences .
Tripps you aggresive remove delete edits of other editors , call them names -trolls , nuts . I would appreciate if you engaged in this discussion directly , specifically meticulously and without sarcasm . Awaiting your response
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Mitanni. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. "idiot" is not a proper way to address other editors, especially in edit summaries BMW(drive) 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
