User talk:Ikonoblast/archive0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

welcome[edit]

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Old Comments[edit]

Please put new messages at the bottom of userpages not above the template. I am a she btw. This is the revert that I did to the page Yadav [1] made by an ip user. I don't see your username in that revert so what is the problem. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 07:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been going through the Lalu Prasad Yadav article and noticed you made a number of edits during April this year. Whilst I appreciate your input could you in future use [citation needed] and not (citation needed), it just makes the whole thing neater. --Horses In The Sky 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhira kingdom[edit]

Hello, I cleaned-up a bit of the page started by you. Please come and help me. Thanks. --Bootblack 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name[edit]

Hello. This is to inform you that some might consider your user name to be inappropriate for Wikipedia, because it can be considered inflammatory, i.e. as referring to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions. Please see the link for more information.

Others might take your contributions less serious because of this, or complain about it. To avoid any hassle, please consider changing your user name, or permanently abandoning this account and starting a new one. Best, Sandstein 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Holy warrior is not at all offensive in indian context.It is equivalent for Dharmayodha in our scriptures used for those who fight for good cause observing sacred rules .It is synonym of noble too. Indians don't consider it offensive.Regarding your apprehensions that ppl may not take my edits seriously,my mission is to do minimum possible edits.I am more of a commentator and observer.I edit only when I have got solid proofs to back my views.Anyway thnx a lot for showing concern.I love my username.Holywarrior 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What abt user:Rama's Arrow and user:Dangerous-Boy.Another one is user:Frymaster whom is he trying to fry.Holywarrior 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of it all is, the phrase 'holy warrior' conjures so many different images in different peoples' minds. I assume Sandstein was thinking of a radical Islamic extremist when he saw the username HolyWarrior. HW himself was thinking of something altogether different, and I personally envisioned a radical fundamentalist christian preacher from the American South wearing a tacky suit and carrying a gigantic bible under his arm. I guess we all have different interpretations of what the phrase 'holy warrior' implies. Wandering Star 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs and Cowardice[edit]

Look you fucking Hindu rat worshipping product of Shiva's black lingam the only low lifes are your fucked up fat nosed Rag-Shit community who would gave all their womenfolk away to the Mughals so they could remain the leaders of a few villages which are nothing but a few typically stinky Indian huts made out of cow shit. Rajputs, Hindus, Caste-System, Sudras, India... LOL, what a FUCKING joke. No wonder every invader from Alexander to Queen Victoria has smacked the shit out of the indians and their dirty Rag-Shit communities. (this unsigned comment was posted by 195.93.21.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on my talk page)Holy | Warrior 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but this is highly offensive. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... which one is more cowardly: HolyWarrior, who has a user page and a talk page, or 195.93.21.1, who uses a proxy server so he can make offensive edits like this one without having to face the consequences of them? HolyWarrior doesn't appear to be hiding from anybody. 195.93.21.1 is hiding from everybody. Perhaps the person who posted this offensive statement is the spineless piece of shit here. Wandering Star 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the asshole who posted this? Aside from being offensive to the highest degree, this is also wrong. alexander's forces were kicked out by a united opposition forged by the mauryas and the english were forced to leave through nonviolence.

perhaps he ought to go to india today. whatever shithole he lives in would crumble.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs)

Khatri[edit]

I believe there's a different tag for Requests for Page Protection. That tag indicated that the page was already protected. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bye the way, do you know of some online version of Manu Smriti? In that case, the quotations from the Manu Smriti that you have used could be made directly linked to a readily verifieable source. Since these are sensitive issues, a readily checkable source would be really nice. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did that already. See "Notes" section. hence I just deleted your extra addition (otherwise becoming double). If you click on the superscripts following the translated shlokas, that will take you to the "Notes" section. On clicking the description of source there (10th Chapter, Works of Manu by Buhler) you will be taken to the 10th chapter of the online Manu Smriti.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fodder scam[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Fodder Scam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Fodder Scam. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TigerShark 12:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan[edit]

I see that you have put questions about Rajput, Bhumihar and Kayastha lineage quoting Buchanan. However, when the same Buchanan is used to have similar questions about the lineage of Goyalas of Bihar, you call this vandalism. Any explanations?


Pataniyababu 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Mr Pataniyababu,despite my best effort you fail to understand,rather you have resorted to vandalism.The controversy you tried to cook on Yadav page is already in the article and has been well discussed in Talk page.It is well written with all prevalents POV about the society including all the names they are known as.Your actions are indeed vandalism and your concerns bullshit.Try to help yourself or else you will be booked.Holywarrior 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated reversions to the article boorbaal which I tried to clean up is in extremely poor taste. Now that I know wikipedia a little bit, makes me wonder whether the article boorbaal is fit for deletion. An admin may pls take a look.(comments from user:59.94.41.235)
My dear friend what you call clean up is actually vandalism.You have tried to make the page look like a nonesense [2]and then trying to get it deleted based on what you did to the page.It is serious offence help yourself and follow procedures and guidelines.Holywarrior 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scythians/Yadava[edit]

All I have access ito is the same stuff as any other editor would, by checking through the history of the article. I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but the only way I could restore it or put it on the TALK page would be by digging through the article history to a point before it was deleted. Cheers, Tomertalk 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...[edit]

I'm new yet I have a random message of you insulting me. I suppose it's a computer glitch, as I have never edited facts, just spelling, and I have no idea what Khattri is or anything. Jay Kay 05:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Yes,it was a computer glitch,the message was for an anonymous editor.Holy---+---Warrior[reply]

Rajput[edit]

please don't join the trolls at Rajput. You are aware of the article's history, and people are extremely trigger-happy banning the sock armies by now. If you want to make changes to the article, do them slowly, point by point, so the other editors can react. Wholesale reverts to the October 2005 version will not be tolerated. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you see, I didn't even look at your edit. All I saw was that half the article was replaced. The semi-protected template was gone, and the October 2005 cleanup template was back. That was a major revert. If you make a single edit to a single section at a time, I won't revert you, that will just be editing as usual: Do one edit at a time, and give other editors time to react before doing major restructuring, that's all I ask. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar[edit]

Hello, nice talking to you. I received your message about above page. What type of intervention you propose? --Bhadani 10:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exact action you want me to take? Regards. --Bhadani 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked an IP for 31 hours for using derogatory word with a purpose against you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:59.94.41.81&diff=prev&oldid=59294605 Further action shall be taken after studying the matter. --Bhadani 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked one for 31 hours/ removed the unauthorized templates/ warned that placing such templates shall attract action. --Bhadani 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space between paragraphs[edit]

Hi Holywarrier, I saw your edits on Bhadani's as well as some other talk pages. Can I humbly advise you to add a blank line between two of your paragraphs, otherwise wikipedia reads it as a continuation of the same line. So once you edit and sign something, next time just add a blank line and then start the other edit. This will ensure that your new edit begins in a new paragraph. Please let me know if any clarification required in this. -- Lost 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domkatar[edit]

You failed to demostrate notablity. It only turns up 18 google links [3]...hardly a notable subject.--MONGO 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable...you can recreate it if you cite the article with a reliable source that will demostrate it's notability.--MONGO 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the article and if you cannot demonstrate that it is notable, it will end up being deleted again...see WP:NOT--MONGO 05:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

{blatantvandal}} Posted by vandal user:59.94.41.130,
The template you have posted above will be added to your acts of vandalism.ThanksHolywarrior 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Star[edit]

Hey HW. I just ran across one of your edits and thought I'd check out your userpage. You're an okay guy, you know? :) Wandering Star 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You are vandalising caste pages like Chandal and others. {{blocked}-----Unsigned comments from user:PandalPetrol Sp of user:VandalPatrol.I think your block period will never expire.Holywarrior 09:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider requesting a username change[edit]

I just thought I should let you know that there is a discussion on WP:AN about whether or not your username is appropriate or not.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PandalPetrol[edit]

Regarding PandalPetrol, I do not know very much about the disagreements you have had with him, but I assumed that you must be in the wrong due to your nomination of the Counter-Vandalism Unit page for deletion, which I took to be trolling. I admit that it isn't my place to try to decide who's right and who isn't, but I advise in the future not to try to have a whole WikiProject done away with just because you have a problem with a particular user who's a member of the project. If you do something like that, people will just assume that you are a troll and won't be willing to listen to you even if what you're trying to say is important.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm not an administrator, so I don't really hold any more power over anyone than you do.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. . This is regarding this comment. --Ragib 05:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What action can I take against ppl who are attakcing me and backing those who are uttering all the nonesense.Plz let me do my job.Your reverts were not in good taste.If you think third rate term was attck i will rv with Liar which surely he is.Holywarrior 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't have the slightest idea what quarrel you have with him, but calling someone "3rd-rate liar" surely falls under WP:NPA. Any further comments like this will result in blocks. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What revert!? --Ragib 05:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If third rate is WP:NA under what category these comments fall.[4].And why you take no action against him.PPL backing vandals are no different from them---At least I think so.Yes You may block me after blocking this man and ppl backing him.Do you have it in you.Holywarrior 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I myself changed it call him a liar only [5] Holywarrior

CVU[edit]

Hi, can you tell me the reason why you want to change the name of CVU?(reply at my talk page) Thanks and take care. Anonymous__Anonymous 10:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hours for persistent disruption on WP:AN, an attacking user page and personal attacks. The block is up for review on WP:AN. Thank you. -- Samir धर्म 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Goodbye.I was waiting for this only.Don't ever think of my getting back to you ppl.Manage your affairs as you wish.Perhaps you all wanted this only.Intentions were made clearly in the discussion .only sane person I have seen was Dab ,rest of all are senseless lot.You may review anything but I won't be back.I don't appreciate retaliatery actions like this.I think Wiki belongs to you and your gang.

Good Bye Forever Holywarrior 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No,We want you back.Cool down and take this block as usual break Wmnnzzr 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also request you not to go away ... rather you are welcome to edit articles, provided that you refrain from the behavior that resulted in the block. Any productive edits from any editor is always welcome in Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ragib 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. You aren't as bad as I first thought and it was wrong for me to assume that you were nothing but a troll just based on a few other users comments without looking into things myself. I know now that VandalPatrol has been trying to make trouble for you and he has been blocked as he deserved, but he does not represent all of the CVU nor does he represent Wikipedia, and I only sided with him originally because I didn't understand the situation and thought that you were the sole troublemaker. Nevertheless, in the future try to negotiate with people.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Holywarrier, I have seen you do good work here. Please consider coming back. -- Lost 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Any Person who delinks my Yahoo page link from my userpage would be appreciated.I would like to personally thank him.I just regret having put it there which I cannot myself detach.Holywarrior 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Pjacobi 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav and Corruption[edit]

I did not add that category, and I agree that it does not belong there so I will remove it myself. Academic Challenger 21:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the grammar on your latest edits to the Lalu Prasad Yadav article. Please remember to put spaces after periods, before the beginning of sentences. Academic Challenger 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "supporters" isn't a good word, but halo is much worse. In general English grammar and Wikipedia, the word halo is never used to describe a person. Academic Challenger 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I agree with the way the article is organized now. Academic Challenger 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Bank[edit]

I've removed the Afd notice as it was inappropriately placed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I suggest WP:RFCU if you have further concerns regarding sockpuppetry -- Samir धर्म 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.Holywarrior 07:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rajput Page[edit]

Should'nt support a version that rajputs do not like.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pulastya ram (talk • contribs) .

Bakasuprman and the Fundy watchlist AfD[edit]

Hello Holywarrior. I've responded to your queries on my talk page, which seems to be a convenient place, because there is discussion there regarding you Bakasuprman and some of the antics on the Fundy watchlist MfD which may be of interest to you, as well as claims that you were attacked by Bakasuprman. THanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. Stop trying to get me blocked for dubious reasons9[6],[7] and [8] . Even Blnguyen said you'd look like a fool if that's all you did. Even though I wasn't part of FundyWatch or the other Patriotic Guild or w/e, I can easily see why CONTRIBUTING users would put you on a watchlist. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for youe input I am going for 3rd party arbitration for comments if diffs are sufficient for NPA warning.Good luck to you.By that time see WP:VandalismHoly|Warrior 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Holywarrior. I do not wish to file a RfC, yet. Let's see what Blnguyen decides first. BhaiSaab talk 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then let it die out.Holy|Warrior 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you upset with my response? BhaiSaab talk 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really but I think why so many people should put so much burden on blnguyen.even he has got sick of these issues.Holy|Warrior 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have little knowledge of the conflict between you and Baka. How long has this been going on? I've had problems with him for about three or four days now. BhaiSaab talk 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was blocked for sockpupettry because I had listed him in WP:RFCU,prior to that he used his sock to make personal attack on me and got blocked.Holy|Warrior 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually pretty funny. I was looking over the RfC rules and it states that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Blnguyen hasn't even decided anything yet, so that requirement has not yet been met. Also it states "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users" and our disputes with him also do not meet this requirement. BhaiSaab talk 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I caught you liars red-handed Bakaman Bakatalk 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind NPA. I've commented on the liars thing in more detail on my page.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you caught so many of our lies...Wow. BhaiSaab talk 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from baiting him.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well looks like your conniving, under-handed, conspiracy has been exposedBakaman Bakatalk 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per above.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the [9] RfC. Oh wait, its just a dastardly act of harrassment. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because every single RfC is harassment. That's why Wikipedia has the process, so users can harass other users. Didn't you know that already? BhaiSaab talk 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had an RfC launched against me by a sock of a banned user. It got deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holywarrior, I have replied to the latest set of documentation lodged to me by Bakasuprman, yourself and BhaiSaab. Also I have made a comment on the RfC. I am quite concerned with the behaivour of all parties at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Goswami[edit]

What about this? - BalthCat 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Well it reads---He tried to self immolate himself and died recently.Trying self-immolation and having commited are two different things.You may insert the comment quoting source.Holy|Warrior 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Do not remove other people's comments from the Talk:Kancha Iliah page. This is vandalism and I will report you if you persist. Do not remove sourced quotes from the article either. This is vandalism too. If you persist then I will report you for that as well.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

128.83.131.139 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my browser auto-signed off foe some reason. This is me Hkelkar 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a pleasant day.
First read the policy well ,if you don't know what is vandalism go through WP:Vand.Reasons were given as edit summary,try to educate yourself what for is the Talk page.Issuing BOGUS WARNINGS may get you blocked instead.Holy|Warrior 09:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it is confirmed now 128.83.131.139 and Hkelkar are one and same person WP:RFCU confirms 128.83.131.139 to be user:subhash bose may not sound pleasant to you.Thanks again.Holy|Warrior 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RRV[edit]

I've blocked you for 25 hours for 3RRV on Kancha Ilaiah. The extra hour is for asserting that 3RRV didn't apply to you. JoshuaZ 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing and very poor work.Can't you see its a biography of a living person.Shame on you .Holy|Warrior 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'''{{unblock|3RR not violated}}''',02:45, 19 July 2006 . . Pathoschild (Talk | contribs) . . 1093×158 (24,198 bytes) (This is a screenshot of the infobox on MediaWiki:Blockedtext, used to simplify instructions to users requesting to be unblocked.)

Reverts were in conformity with policy.The version was defamatory and last reveret was to hkelkar not my POV (which you may allege) either.Holy|Warrior 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is not the case of wikistalking by Joshua.Holy|Warrior 07:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to wait for 25 hours.If you are adamant on your stand for no reasons,I have right to frame you under defwarn procedure for clubbing with people who are trying to defame a living personality.Holy|Warrior 07:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::::I could count I have not even violated 3RR [10].Holy|Warrior 08:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant abuse of admin power,can anybody {{helpme}} to take suitable action against this admin.Holy|Warrior 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please only use the {{unblock}} template when requesting unblocks. {{helpme}} is for new users looking for help in editing. --Rory096 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to my page.but is it not unfair to block someone for no reason and then not communicating.Holy|Warrior 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua I can't wait like this , but you may have nice time and fun for 25 hrs.GOOD LUCK.Holy|Warrior 08:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have nothing against Joshua , but remaining cool is not easy when you are accused despite being innocent.Holy|Warrior 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reverting libel in biographies of living persons is excempted from the 3RR per WP:BLP. Unfortunately agreeing whether a statement is libel, is sometimes difficult. I don't see through all issues involved, so I consider me unable to unblock you right now. From a short look, a huge percentage of articles related some way or the othe to the Indian caste system (including the article itself) are an unenclopedic mess. --Pjacobi 13:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I haven't even violated 3RR.this is my problem.Plz count in the white box linkHoly|Warrior 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made only 3 edits on article Kancha Ilaiah on 26th aug ,can anyone show me the 4th.Holy|Warrior 13:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway thanks a lot for adressing the problem .Holy|Warrior 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 3RR was not technically violated. Although you seem to have been gaming the 3RR (which is somehow excusable, since you were outnumbered in a revert war). See my note to the blocking admin here. I do think the block was unfortunate, since a compromise solution was just emerging. (ᛎ) qɐp 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your efforts , I was just trying to discourage them who are habituated to win the situation by 3RR limitations.Holy|Warrior 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am logging out now and take on this matter tomorrow.Holy|Warrior 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on my talk page, I have reduced your block to time served. Only 3 of the reverts occured within a 24 hour timespan even though there were four reverts. While this could be considered an attempt to game the system (and that was in fact my initial impression) that does not merit necessarily a long block, maybe a 12 hour block. While one could argue that this should be a longer block since you have been blocked for disruption before, this argument is not persuasive. As to the WP:BLP issue, it doesn't seem to me to be libelous as intended by the BLP exception to 3RRV. However, that is too much a matter of interpretation to merit additional blocking time. Finally, since the final version was a compromise version, further blocking is unconstructive. All of that said, I caution you in the future when blocked to remain calm and civil and not to make accusations such as wikistalking unless they have merit. In fact, I don't think I have ever encountered you before and so I find that claim particularly odd. In general you are more likely to get unblocked when you do not make such accusations and attacks. JoshuaZ 15:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivil arguments above raises questions about your competence as admin.You must not cite earlier block of which you have little knowledge.Block has lasted its full time and don't pretend either that it was reduced.Finally I am at nobody's mercy here,I follow the wikipedia policies and same applies to you too.Holy|Warrior 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to close this matter by thanking everyone who tried to get me unblocked and will like to forgive the offender too though he may indeed like to justify it.Let us assume -- It was a human error and Joshua will take care of it in future.Holy|Warrior 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way[edit]

I have put in your references and suggested quotes in Ilaiah's defense.Hkelkar 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start another edit war on Kancha Ilaiah[edit]

This is unproductive and does not do anyone any good. Please discuss calmly and rationally and we will all be better off. Thank you very much and have a nice day.Hkelkar 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you learn nothing from my earlier suggestion regarding BOGUS WARNING.HW 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Bite The newbies.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baka are you sure???? HW 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

Please remember, when creating new articles, that they are generally Not All Capitalised, but unless it is a proper noun, Only the first letter will be capitalised. I mention this because of some of your entries on your user page, for example Indian Caste System should be Indian caste system. - BalthCat 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove source statements from Caste[edit]

Doing so can be construed as vandalism.Shiva's Trident 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments are from well known user:subhash bose
Yes, I've changed my sig as per admin requet.Shiva's Trident 12:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALWAYS WARN WITH DIFF, else it is considered BOGUS and Vandalism too.Take care.I had only rv there to a version which includes link .False allegations are WP:NPA Attack.HW 12:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first diff warning, with tag diff

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

First of two warningsShiva's Trident 12:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that if you persist with bullying acts I will have no choice but to take formal proceedings.Shiva's Trident 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is one thing that I have accomodated on. Please see talk page of the article. Thanks.Shiva's Trident 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the present edit. I think that it's satisfactory.Shiva's Trident 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree , infact I had presumed that earlier version conatins link without your wordings which was wrong actually.You may check my edit summaries.I did not intend to remove the link.HW 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more fundamental problem with this and other factoids in that article. Please see the talk page. --Pjacobi 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Caution Holywarrior. If you revert the page Kancha Ilaiah one more time in the near future you will be in violation of the WP:3RR policy and liable for a temporary block. Please take the discussion to the talk page and sort it out there. Ben W Bell talk 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me.Good work I appreciate it.HW 13:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack[edit]

I believe that this edit of yours diff

constitutes a personal attack.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Hkelkar 11:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diff reads

the user:hkelkar has history of cheating the system .He had got me blocked for 3RR violation citing diffs of many days. I was soon unblocked after the fraud committed by him was noticed.HW 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which is actually true and proven, and I stand by my comment.I advise you to refrain from such menial ways Also read well WP:NPA ,Infact the warning you have posted may be treated as Attack.If you don't mend your ways you may recieve block too.HW 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. - This is regarding you edit [11].Bakaman Bakatalk 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infact go ahead and report it on ANB instead ;they surely need to come out with some solutions abouit your PROBLEMS.HW 14:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-brahminist[edit]

Did not remove anything. Merely commented it out, because it comes from the gadar site. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its very definition of Anti Brahminism don't remove it. HW  16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Regarding this edit [12]. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka I intended to give you same warning ,but now I have become immune to your NONESENSE. HW  16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Hello Holywarrior. Please refrain from giving other established users robot-templated warnings. Please consider taking a minute to write a personal note raising your concerns. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this issue continues to escalate, I've blocked everyone involved for 24 hours. I greatly appreciate your promise to avoid edit warring on the article and I sincerely hope you can avoid incivility in the future as well. It is wonderful that you're so concerned for the article, but its important not to attack other editors, no matter how much we disagree with thier actions. I noticed someone mentioned you had opened an RfC and you've also tried mediation. Since it seems that a number of people are having trouble editing this article in a civil and neutral manner, you might want to try sorting it out at ArbCom. Shell babelfish 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are either misled or deliberately have not taken enough care to inform yourself.PLz Inform which article is your concern and which bogus warning you are referring to. HW  08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is Kancha Ilaiah I haven't made a single edit there after my declaration.Regarding Blnguyen I must say it is amusing to see him getting hyperactive and concerned with established users like Bakasuprman,Subhash and Hkelkar. HW  08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Babelfish must unblock me immediately on sight ; otherwise I am definately concerned with Trolling Admins.I don't care who has misled you this time.Always offer proper reasonings for blocks -- What you have offered is BULLSHIT. HW  08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a clever thing to say. Secondly, I was commenting on the form of your warning. Yes, all of you are established.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never want to be clever I just want to be honest.Isn't it true you have indirectly contributed to Kancha Ilaiah by unethically protecting it and choosing to remain silent thereafter even after my repeated requests. HW  09:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Babelfish
This is third time I have seen admins offering PURE NONESENSE as reason for BLOCK.I know most of you don't have guts to stand up against the CONTESTED , UNBLOCK REASONS so I suggest you to remain silent and if the reason is really good to spoil your reputation just be nice at the last hour justifying some of your reasons .Blocking someone does add feather in your cap because most admins are EXHAUSTED EDITORS -- in what other way can they contribute????? Because Admins are poor contributors ,contributors should never join the discredited class of wikipedia admins.Looking at ANB to catch someone for exercising BLOCK is not a good way to contribute;it rather speaks of your sick mind.Whether you unblock or not depends purely on you - I just don't care now.But soon after unblocking I will do the same edits I was doing .  HW  10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


After reviewing situation on several pages I can understand admins have taken this step for some good reason.Although they have tried to avoid harsh treatment on most users ;some deserved it surely.I don't mind being blocked.Thanx  HW  11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Densagueo whenever you visit this page again Plz do a small service for me.Ask for check user of following

I will be really thankful to you.For proof see your own contribution history and Hkelkar's too.For rest you can rely on WP:RFCU. Thanx.  HW  11:58, 4 September 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block reasons cited are false

Decline reason:

Please provide example of false accusations - diffs will do. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:46, 4 September 2006 (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.

Plz look for contention here.Infact [13] .Infact none of the diffs cited are enf for block. HW  08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to see a single diff which justify this block.Can shell provide. HW  08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The warning issued against this accusation was called bogus.PLZ check. HW  09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I did not mean to indicate that I have anything against you (or anyone) personally. It's just that I looked at this conflict in the talk pages and was worried that the treatment of all users is unbalanced, and accusations are rampant. Therefore I just wanted to offer my services as a neutral third party and inform all users concerned of your previous edit, which, in my opinion, was in bad faith. This other user was also behaving badly in my opinion, though he seems to have stopped.
If you wish to explain your point then please do so and I will gladly listen to it. Please do not make accusations against me as you have other user as it makes you look bad, and I do not wish for any editor to get a false impression. Good day to you.Densagueo 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misunderstood you,but the standard wiki language and terminology you use ,and your knowledge of templates (your very first edit) makes me a bit sckeptical about your being less than 24 hrs old user.For how long had you been editing??? Plus it would be really good if you request a checkuser on my behalf-- because then you too would be cleared of suspicion.Thanx. HW  12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've been editing as anonymous ips for some time now and have been doing so off and on for longer than 24 hrs. My familiarity with the wiki language came from viewing many talk pages and reading wikipedia manuals over the course of many weeks. I've been reluctant to make too many edits because of the hostile responses, revert wars etc that I have seen so far, but this situation warranted my intervention. If you wish to respond to my proposal by filing complaints against me then it's clear that I have not succeeded in trying to mediate this dispute and will leave, wishing all involved parties well.Densagueo 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infact you are assuming bad faith here see WP:AGF,if you are innocent RFCU will proove it.There is nothing wrong in being cleared by RFCU. HW  13:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The request you have put on shells page is copy of Hkelkar's request on Blnguyen .In that way I am justified in suspecting you. HW  13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't put it there. I think he explained himself in the other admin's page. He must've copy-pasted the text over. I don't know who he is at all, and I'm getting a little tired of your accusations that have already been debunked. If you have issues with this guy then plz don't involve me.Hkelkar 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting checkuser is not at all an accusation.Infact only true socks take it unkindly.I would request you to remain cool and let things go their way.Thanx  HW  13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the messages you've left in several places, the reason you were blocked along with everyone else is because this dispute keeps showing up on administrator's noticeboards with one party or another claiming that they are being wronged. From my review of the situation, I determined that everyone involved was losing their cool and being generally uncivil to each other so I thought a break was in order. You might look at the other's involved - you're the only one that got a long message trying to explain what you might do to help the situation. I think of all the participants, you have been the most calm and are genuinely concerned about the POV you feel is getting into the articles - unfortunately, edit warring and leaving uncivil edit summaries or notes on talk pages is hurting your case. If you have any questions about dispute resolution or need help getting any of the forms together, please let me know. (oh, P.S., I'm GMT -5 so yeah, we keep missing each other) Shell babelfish 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks etc[edit]

Hi Holywarrior and thanks for your message. Your reasonableness, at least in your first paragraph, will cause me to give an extra degree of consideration if you appear on the unblock list again. Most users detonate over the blocking admin and go nuclear over the not-unblocking one. That you didn't is a good reflection on you.

I'm afraid I can't comment in depth on the other information you supply, as it seems that a good 30 minutes to an hour would be required to sort the matter out. That's something WP:RFC and WP:RfAr can do, but a simple editor can rarely manage.

All I can advise is that you withdraw from the subjects where you feel you are under attack, at least for a period of time. You will not be the only editor on these pages, so incorrect edits will be reverted without your input. You can continue to monitor the articles, of course, but you might like to find other people - wikifriends old and new - to help you patrol them fairly.

If you gain a reputation for fairness in your editing and co-operation in your communication (and, dare I say it, being concise in your responses to the errors of others) you will find yourself fighting for truth and justice from the inside rather than from outside. Happy editing, my friend. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to look into my case ;phps Shell too is right . HW  10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikonoblast/archive0&oldid=1144177422"