~ Troy (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're doing an excellent job! ~ Troy (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you havent figured out already, a montage is supposed to be for an infobox. And an infobox doesnt need to show a high res image since the size gets shrunk anyway. Anyone who wants a detailed image of Humayun's Tomb can click the link. It's not that complicated. Nikkul (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i dont know how to describe this any better, but having a picture of a train in the montage is quite ridiculous. And the Humayun's Tomb image shows a unique perspective. The entrance gate shows an Islamic arch, which adds a lot of meaning to the picture. I would not liketo have a pic of Sarfar Tomb. Nikkul (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I make my edits based on what i feel will make the encyclopedia better. The image you had added showed three buses far away without detail. The next image you added showed the front of a bus. I feel the image I added (Image:Gand.jpg) shows the buses in Delhi better than any other image. Also, this is not an image i have uploaded, so you can not say im trying to add only my images.
And we had NEVER agreed upon the foggy image that doesnt show a road or the Rastrapati Bhavan clearly. Please dont tell me I have agreed to that!
And lastly, you saying Akshadram Temple is not in New Delhi without proividing a source is your OWN research. I dont mind taking off the image if you provide sources that say this is not the case. I have provided a source which says it is in New Delhi.
If you want to go to the Admin Notice board, PLEASE feel free. I have done nothing wrong. Nikkul (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:IRP, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "God.. I hate vigilantes." - This is a bad thing. You must not do this again. I do know it is frustrating to have your edits reversed out, but... the edits look bad in their context.
I strongly suggest a step back, and a deep breath. You are a valuable editor, but this is not the way.sinneed (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I have a suggestion on the article: You might consider putting a flag at the top indicating that it is under construction, and that edits may seem to be destructive which are in fact part of a major rework. I will hunt it down and give you link. Template:Underconstructionsinneed (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have issues with reordering alphabetically; however, my edit was still useful as some countries play larger roles in the global economy than others (and thus carry more weight in their reaction). It was nationalist to list India third when it has a relatively minor role in the global economy (12th largest). 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive your ignorance that France, UK, Brazil all have larger (in some cases much larger) economies measured by market-exchange rates than India. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are making conclusions based on your own POV. What does China and Germany have do to with my edits? Did I rearrange their orders and make it seem that China is more important? You are trying to imply that I am anti-India when I was making a more neutral edit. I (and probably most people in North America) frankly couldn't care less about India. If anything, I was making an anti-nationalistic edit. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence where how I "placed Chinese remarks ahead of Germany's". If you bothered looking at the edit summary, you will notice that I did not touch their placements and only altered the nationalistic India placement. I am beginning to regret your nationalistic posturing in turn. I suggest we move on now and end this silly conversation. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we try to represent all points of view, and in cases like this when it isn't possible we stick with the neutral ones. "Terrorism" implies that we are denouncing the attack; this way the reader can make their own judgment from the text contained in the article. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Enigma Machine) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~ Troy (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're doing an excellent job! ~ Troy (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you havent figured out already, a montage is supposed to be for an infobox. And an infobox doesnt need to show a high res image since the size gets shrunk anyway. Anyone who wants a detailed image of Humayun's Tomb can click the link. It's not that complicated. Nikkul (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i dont know how to describe this any better, but having a picture of a train in the montage is quite ridiculous. And the Humayun's Tomb image shows a unique perspective. The entrance gate shows an Islamic arch, which adds a lot of meaning to the picture. I would not liketo have a pic of Sarfar Tomb. Nikkul (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I make my edits based on what i feel will make the encyclopedia better. The image you had added showed three buses far away without detail. The next image you added showed the front of a bus. I feel the image I added (Image:Gand.jpg) shows the buses in Delhi better than any other image. Also, this is not an image i have uploaded, so you can not say im trying to add only my images.
And we had NEVER agreed upon the foggy image that doesnt show a road or the Rastrapati Bhavan clearly. Please dont tell me I have agreed to that!
And lastly, you saying Akshadram Temple is not in New Delhi without proividing a source is your OWN research. I dont mind taking off the image if you provide sources that say this is not the case. I have provided a source which says it is in New Delhi.
If you want to go to the Admin Notice board, PLEASE feel free. I have done nothing wrong. Nikkul (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:IRP, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "God.. I hate vigilantes." - This is a bad thing. You must not do this again. I do know it is frustrating to have your edits reversed out, but... the edits look bad in their context.
I strongly suggest a step back, and a deep breath. You are a valuable editor, but this is not the way.sinneed (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I have a suggestion on the article: You might consider putting a flag at the top indicating that it is under construction, and that edits may seem to be destructive which are in fact part of a major rework. I will hunt it down and give you link. Template:Underconstructionsinneed (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have issues with reordering alphabetically; however, my edit was still useful as some countries play larger roles in the global economy than others (and thus carry more weight in their reaction). It was nationalist to list India third when it has a relatively minor role in the global economy (12th largest). 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive your ignorance that France, UK, Brazil all have larger (in some cases much larger) economies measured by market-exchange rates than India. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are making conclusions based on your own POV. What does China and Germany have do to with my edits? Did I rearrange their orders and make it seem that China is more important? You are trying to imply that I am anti-India when I was making a more neutral edit. I (and probably most people in North America) frankly couldn't care less about India. If anything, I was making an anti-nationalistic edit. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence where how I "placed Chinese remarks ahead of Germany's". If you bothered looking at the edit summary, you will notice that I did not touch their placements and only altered the nationalistic India placement. I am beginning to regret your nationalistic posturing in turn. I suggest we move on now and end this silly conversation. 130.113.81.33 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we try to represent all points of view, and in cases like this when it isn't possible we stick with the neutral ones. "Terrorism" implies that we are denouncing the attack; this way the reader can make their own judgment from the text contained in the article. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you are a sockpuppet of DB2, as you aren't supposed to use a separate account for only engaging in disputes with people. If you forgot your password, it's considered proper to go and put a note on your userpage rather than making a first edit with a new account to target an opponent. If you agree to link to your old accounts so that the Delhi Belly isn't a separate/isolated account for engaging in a dispute then I'll unblock the accounts. And once you have done this, don't double-dip with the IP and the account. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you noticed, I already provided link to my this ip on User:Enigma Machine's talkpage. And yes, I will provide a link to my previous account too. But don't you think your decision to block me was inappropriate and the action was taken without sufficient research? And I was acting on User:Nichalp's advice. He told me to file for a RfC since I asked for his views on the concerned user's edits. Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk)
Huh? What is wrong in that? Don't tell me I can't use multiple ips. Hell, I can. Did you go through the talkpage and edits of 67.180? That ip is currently unblocked and was blocked in the first place because someone else thought that that was a sock of User:Signswork. You blocked me for being a sockpuppet and that is incorrect. I've made no edits for which I should be blocked. The fact that I link my ips speak for itself. The only reason why I'm getting blocked is because I'm raising objections to Lalit's edits and this very unfortunate. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on here ...instead of logging on as Delhi Belly 2 (talk·contribs) or using whatever ip you should be on, you've created Enigma Machine (talk·contribs) just to file an rfc against another user? I don't get that. ~ Troy (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because, I forgot Delhi Belly's password and to file a RfC, one needs to sign in. So, I created a new account. I even provided a link to this ip on that account's talkpage. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even then, this is absolute non-sense. 67.180 got blocked because that ip reverted edits made by Lalit and the block was put in place even though I didn't revert after receiving last warning. Fact remains, I just reverted Lalit's edits once. And under this ip, I filed for a RfC against him upon Nichalp's advice, and again I get blocked. So you tell me. I have objections to Lalit's edits. I revert, but then I get blocked. I take the matter to Administrator Noticeboard, and was advised to be bold by one administrator and to file RfC by another. Keeping that in mind, when I return back, I spare time and file for a RfC but then get blocked again. What should I do? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I find it easier to discuss before considering a revert, whether or not any sock puppetry is involved. ~ Troy (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my only mistake. Even then, I only reverted once. He reverted my revert but I didn't reciprocate. And instead, I decided to file for a RfC upon receiving advice from User:Nichalp. So, is this block justified? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I left a message on the concerned user's talkpage. I also took up the matter with ANI. What I did was in accordance with WP:BOLD. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Whether or not this block is justified is not for me to say, but ...since you edit from a university as well, I personally have no problem with you're multiple IPs as long as there's no disruption (keeping in mind that they're shared addresses). There's nothing wrong with being bold, but engaging in any sort of dispute with another user is avoidable at best. As for the account you created, I'm still sure that you would have been better off leaving a note on your userpage or at least contacting somebody before creating that account. ~ Troy (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
...I'm sorry if I can't help you any more now, but I've got to go sleep now. ~ Troy (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll keep your advice in mind. From now on, I would only discuss any outstanding issues I have. And I would be more careful next time about using accounts. What can be done now? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to leave a message on YellowMonkey's talkpage requesting him to check my reply? Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To YellowMonkey: I apologize. I should have discussed the matter with other Wikipedians before filing for a RfC. I already asked User:Nichalp but I should have taken more Wikipedians more into confidence. I also understand that I need to clearly indicate my previous account before creating another one. I'll keep these points in mind. Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get VS to have a look at that other sock. If that's all fine, I'll unblock you. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered both components of your unblock requests together:
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).
Quite weird. I created a new account because I forgot the password for my previous account. Besides, I haven't made an edit by the previous account (User:Delhi Belly 2) for the last 3 months or so. And I filed for a RfC. What is wrong with that? And I wouldn't have created a new account because I usually make edits as anon but had to file for a RfC, so created a new one. There is nothing wrong in creating multiple accounts as long as I'm not indulging in sockpuppetry. Besides, I have a legitimate reason to create a new account since I forgot previous one's password. Had I used multiple accounts to add weight to my case, one could've very well called it sockpuppetry. Besides, there hasn't been even one disruptive edit by me & Well, in more greater detail. I filed for a RfC on User:Lalit Jagannath and for that purpose I created a new account, User:Enigma Machine. I couldn't log in to my previous account, User:Delhi Belly 2, because I forgot its password. User:YellowMonkey thought I was a sockpuppet of User:Delhi Belly 2 and blocked User:Enigma Machine indefinitely and this ip till Jan 20th. Am I not allowed to create a new account in case I forgot the password of my previous account? And even then.. so what? The last edit by me under User:Delhi Belly 2 was made on October 28th, 2008. This is my dorm room's ip. So, it is not shared. Besides, the history of edits made by me under this ip and User:Delhi Belly 2 speaks for itself. Thanks--128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I have come here following a direct request by the blocking admin acting upon the request of others who are trying to understand your editing pattern and your behaviour at Wikipedia. As you are aware I was first administrator to put a block on your account 67.180.5.41, which I considered to be a sock or meat puppet of user: Signswork. (Complete details of that discussion are here and and then later here0. At the time you made great reference to the fact that you had edited from a previous account for 2 years amassing 15,000 edits. As you know we discussed this at length and you told me that you normally edited from this current IP and that you did not want to reveal your account name. Daniel came by later and agreed with the blocking and my summation of the events. Today we learn that in fact you have another account (DelhiBelly2) which clearly does not reflect 15,000+ edits, plus you have created (Enigma Machine) without reference to either your other (still unidentified) 15000+ edit account or to DelhiBelly2. Put simply your obfuscation of this situation beggars belief; you appear to be game playing the system, and I decline your unblock request accordingly. — --VStalk 09:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Bay of Bengal, you will be blocked from editing. Shovon (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Enigma Machine. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is your only warning. 
