Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Submariner 9

What's the evidence for being a Hilary T sock? Email if confidential. DGG (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Open proxies. The edit summaries, style of edits, and CheckUser data matches the pattern of Hilary T's previous reincarnations. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible collateral damage for you to look into...

See User talk:Guruclef. His editing history does not match that of the blocked user, HOWEVER, this account has been inactive for 2 years, leading me to believe this may be a hijacked or compromised account. Could you look into this, and grant IPBE if appropriate, or perhaps decline his request if not? Thanks!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

protection of LTTE article

why did you protect the LTTE article? Levels of vandalism seem to be manageable as of late. While there are of course problems with some of John Harvey's edits, I think they can be addressed in a normal way and do not warrant edit protection. There are some valid points he makes e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=288607025&oldid=288606272, which is really not about LTTE, but about some random criminal who happens to be Tamil. In short, I would request you to return the protection level to IP. Thank you Jasy jatere (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously confused, sorry for that Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations on Rainer Werner Fassbinder

On 31 October 2007 you awarded a barnstar to Miguelemejia (talk · contribs) for his expansion of Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Unfortunately, he expanded it through multiple copyright violations, as I have shown at the article talk page. IP editors are treated like dirt at Wikipedia and an anonymous editor cannot hold a named editor responsible for even the most outrageous violation of Wikipedia's policies. However, I am sure that you will be able, if you are willing, to see that the appropriate actions are taken. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nishkid64. You have new messages at Wikireader41's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikireader41 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamiliam

Hello. I believe you are an admin. If not, direct me to the right place :p. Anyway, I am concerned about Tamililam's username because it is close to Tamil Eelam, and that could be viewed as a sort of violation of WP:SPAMNAME. Thanks. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ignore me. I misread the name. Thanks --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another User:Ziggymaster sock?

Nishkid, sorry to bother you... this user seems pretty suspicious, he just showed up and reverted to a several-months-old version of an article. I haven't filed a CU but the duck test is suggesting that it's another sock of Ziggymaster/Wondergirls/Mayamore/Manmohit2002 et al, whom I think you've dealt with before. If you have a moment would you be able to weigh in? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears Red X Unrelated. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that. You're right, after I left you this message that editor also made some non-Ziggymaster-like edits...I guess his other revert was just a strange coincidence. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

These pages need semiprotection from Nangparbat

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wars_and_conflicts_between_India_and_Pakistan&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Longewala&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_stand&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahsan_Malik&action=history

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian apartment bombings

Note that after your protection expired, Biophys immediately started to edit war once again: [1][2]. He has already done this a billion times, as can be seen from the article history. Offliner (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If to look at two most recent threads at the talk page of this article (here and here), there was clearly a consensus to restore this information, although perhaps a little shorter. At least, there was no consensus to delete. I tried to implement this, but Offliner reverted me in five minutes. There is a bigger problem here. There are many articles that Offliner never edited before, but he simply follows my edits and reverts me without even talking, like here. Some of them I believe represent BLP violation, like here. I am not sure this is right place for such discussions, but there are many examples:[3][4][5][6][7][8].Biophys (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There was no consensus on inserting the material. User:Beatle Fab Four, me and User:Russavia opposed the inclusion, as can be clearly seen from the talk page and from the article history [9]. Offliner (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, Beatle Fab Four is a user of the kind who never contributes anything new, only reverts. Similar to User:DonaldDuck, although perhaps with a slightly different range of interests. I wouldn't ever cite BFF in any sort of serious discussion, no matter his position, because his discussion has never exceeded this level of "reasoning".
That having been said, I am not familiar with Russian apartment bombings, and do not have an opinion of substance of the discussion at this time. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There is a copycat of Offliner, a User:PasswordUsername who does precisely the same. He comes to a page he never edited before, reverts me without talking, and calls me "vandal" in the process only to restore a version by a sock of User:Jacob Peters. Then, he comes to my talk page to accuse me of vandalism and lying about sources again. I ask him not to follow my edits [10], but he does precisely that and reverts my every minor technical edit [11].Biophys (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys has already called me as well of being a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters, within 24 hours of us having an exchange on an CfD nomination and article discussion – just this May 10. (As far as the real Peters, I guess he thinks that anything written by a banned user is in fact factually wrong and inaccurate.) In spite of his whining about me following him, it was in fact he who's been following my editing patterns, justifying this as examining me to make sure than I'm not a "sock." This has spread even to voting on the proposed deletion of Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 14#Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union this discussion to see what I mean) – a category in which Biophys had never before expressed any particular interest. (You can also see the same happening – Biophys very tendentiously attacking an original article I wrote here – an article he could only have discovered by stalking my editing history.) He's previously responded to my request that he stop his tendentious following-around by stating that he follows around Digwuren on a deleted portion of his user talk (which seems like a case of harrassment by WP:TEAM (do note the sort of comments Biophys and Diggy have left at Template_talk:Falsification_of_history#Links). When I politely explained in full the trouble with his editing patterns at User talk:Biophys (here is evidence of his tracing multiple users), he promptly deleted the less flattering records from his talk page. Now he is attacking me here – I would assume he is doing so because he is pissed off at my reverts of edits to pages like Valeriya Novodvorskaya, where he keeps beating a dead horse first settled against his POV as long ago as last year (Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya) – where I did not "follow him" as I had edited the article before registering as a user just over a month ago, though not wondering about his editing is difficult when he conspires with others to charge me with baseless accusations of committing sokcpuppetry against all rules of assuming good faith – when I'm not even a party to the apartment bombings dispute. (For the skae of the record, nowhere in my user history have I ever consulted about my "strategy" with Offliner or somebody else before editing anything – which isn't the case as far as Digwuren and Biophys, who have openly coordinated their accusations here and here their accusations (one ought to note that Digwuren is bold enough to encourage his WP:TEAM buddies to "discuss strategy in private" at the very top of his user page). The accusations and sheer level of ill-will here are ridiculous. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have blocked both editors involved in the edit war. Nakon 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, this seems to be under control. Thanks, Nakon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help

have a look at atricals related to indian defence forces/system, all are suffering large scale vandalism and misinformation with referances 4rm pakistan based news networks. how can referances from pakistan based newsnetworks be taken as neutral n correct about an indian topic whn those referances sounds clearly anit-indian? I request you(as you are wiki-india project user) to have a look into these articals n correct them.(Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)) repeated use of anit-DRDO statements(statement were made acctually in light way but being used in harsh manner on wikipedia) made by some admiral where those are not at all required of secondly adding words like very, commonly, poor n etc in a effort to highlight that perticular point.And why referances from pakistani websites are being use on indian articals.And why tht lines with referances from asiatimes being highlighted.(Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Nishkid. I'm just wondering why my contributions to the pages of Pakistani Americans, Pakistani Canadians and British Pakistanis, get deleted/modified by you? I thought that what I was posting was quite informative and just wanted to add information not already available on Wikipedia. Regards.A Fantasy (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Now please dont attack Alan16 for reducing pov edits on the british pakistani page just because he removed your chums wikivandals41 false edits you can see for yourself hes pov pushing again and you have ignore again what are you going to do give a another warning? [12] please stop supporting wikivandal41 cheers 86.156.213.201 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The fact that you have demonstrated a strong pov by deleting my talk page addition means you have no right to be a admin maybe you should re think being one and stop letting fellow indian vandals ruin pakistani articles dont you have a life outside wikipedia? 86.156.213.201 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned means banned. Understand that your contributions will not be accepted on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Go spend your time trying to get good grades instead of pushing your pro-Pakistani/anti-India POV here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I do not know Nangparbat, all I know is an IP address who I came in contact with when trying to calm down a situation who then approached me with the ideas he expressed on my talk page. What was suggested was completely accurate and fully supported by reliable sources. I also - no offence intended - do not trust your neutrality in relation to these issues. Regards. Alan16 talk 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You accuse me of making unqualified assumptions yet on my talk page you basically accuse me of editing on Nangparbat's part. As I said, I do not know Nangparbat. End off. Alan16 talk 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those stupid comments. Just to clear the air, I mistakenly accused you of accusing me (this could get confusing) of proxying, when in fact it was another user accusing me, not you accusing me. I hope that cleared that up... To be honest, I don't know how I ended up in this mess, as I know little about the subject, and it isn't of particular interest to me; I was just reacting to suggestions which seemed reasonable. I was wondering what you would recommend I do if Nangparbat or an IP address which you know to be his, contacts me again with reasonable suggestions (including reliable sources). Do I ignore, or edit? Regards. Alan16 talk 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan let me say one thing. It was not my intention to accuse you of any wrongdoing. i merely was trying to give you a friendly pointer towards a wikipedia policy on proxying. i am sorry if it sounded like an accusation. you look like you are a solid editor and I only have goodwill towards you. please feel free to report any suspicious Nangparbat activity. Cheers Wikireader41 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auson sock

Would SandhedTiesa (talk · contribs) qualify as another sock of Auson? ~ Troy (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible. I'd say block if the MO fits. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR

You have a current nominee at WP:FOUR. We are trying to clear out the log of nominees without having the nominator confirm the eligibility. If you have a chance could you help confirm a nominee or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO

HELLO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yooooyoyoyo (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on 1880 Republican National Convention.
--Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more for the gwp case

Hi Nishkid.

I was collecting a list of more socks, and the case was completed while I was looking around through various logs and page histories.

Here's the list, sorry for dumping all this on your talk page.

List of accounts/IPs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There may be a few I have overlooked. In particular, there are probably more accounts with those Roman numeral characters, but I can't find them, and I am not sure how to type them.

Thanks for your time,

J.delanoygabsadds 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more...
more accounts/IPs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Once again, apologies for dumping these here.
Regards,
J.delanoygabsadds 04:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all IPs and accounts covered. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seriously

Wh-у ѕо ѕеriоus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.32.154 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STrider

He's announced his IP by socking with it so we can tell the others what his IP is YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nishkid64. You have new messages at Wikireader41's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikireader41 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi election ITN

Hi Nishkid, many thanks for posting this article. I think you may have forgotten to add (or not known of) the recognition templates (listed at Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Recognition) to users' talk pages. These are typically used to recognise the work put in by article creators, updaters and (to a lesser extent) the nominators at ITN. In this case the creator User:Nightstallion needs a template and I would be grateful for one for the nomination. Sorry to hassle you with this but some people do like to keep a record of their ITNs (me included!), many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC Request

Hi there, I have just sent Fantasy Black Channel to FA Review after (hopefully) following your advice on Supernature. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any comments, support, or even a constructive oppose here. Cheers. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question..

I firmly believe that people should have the opportunity to start over, and if you can't tell they were a previously problematic user based on their current conduct, then life is good. The truly problematic user, won't be able to hide the problematic behavior. The reformed user no longer displays the problematic behavior. IMHO, this sort of 'reformed/starting-over' is one of the reasons we disallow 'fishing' with the CheckUser tool. --Versageek 19:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one of the reasons why we don't allow fishing (and one of the things I take into account when I suspect a SPA might be a sock). I'm okay with it if Sam simply had a few blocks in his history, but desysopping? I have to draw the line somewhere. Furthermore, with regards to MBisanz's research, there are multiple instances where Sam should have probably recused himself. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request at User talk:Pinklitigation

Hi there. If you get a chance, please take a peek at the unblock request at User talk:Pinklitigation. It appears he might be caught by one of your checkuser blocks, but between the history at Special:Contributions/Qwertgb and the vague the block message on Qwertgb, there's not much for me to go on, I figured I'd leave it to you instead. :P --slakr\ talk / 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have softened that block, because Pinklitigation was caught by it. I couldn't find out accurately whether the range was dynamic or not but he seemed unrelated to that vandal. -- Luk talk 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi! You've copy-pasted a lengthy warning or disclaimer, but didn't really explain what for, which articles, etc., and what exactly prompted it. Thank you for clarifying it. --Goldorack (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I appreciate the heads up, but I am not violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPOV. If I am "denying" the "Armenian genocide", then the opposite is alleging the "Armenian genocide" - which would be POV. I am making sure that the text is neutral, and uses neutral wording. The edit warring in Eurovision pages is done by a group of editors, about which I officially lodged a complaint yesterday to the Administrators (please see it, perhaps, it would be great if you contact those editors and warn them about edit warring). If I revert vandalism -- that is, wholesale removal of sources -- that's not edit warring, nor is it violation of the decision you cited. Thank you. --Goldorack (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for clarifying it, it helps a lot! --Goldorack (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat today

you should protect the articles too Stomach

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

United States-Pakistan skirmishes Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moses of Chorene at Arbitration

Hi Nishkid, I have mentioned you over at the arbitration request for Moses of Chorene.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Moses of Chorene

John Vandenberg (chat) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

The vandal is back http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=States_and_territories_of_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already semiprotected these pages. Thegreyanomaly notified me as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Mumbai. I'm waiting for the bhajji-styled hatchet job. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joking man1

Re: Joking man1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hallo Nish.,

Is there any reason that his access to emailuser and editowntalk is blocked?

AGK 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; thanks. AGK 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA Nomination; Ryan Braun

Hi. I've nominated Ryan Braun to be a Featured Article. As you are a significant baseball editor, you may wish to contribute your view as to whether it should be a FA. The discussion of the FA comment process can be found at [13], and the page that you can go in through to leave comments is the article's talk page at [14]. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian discrimination against Roma people

My reply is at User talk:EdJohnston#Hungarian discrimination against Roma people. Afd sounds like a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who r u ?

who r u ? and why u deleted my template and made changes in other one ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanter (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You stopped me editing WW1 at why Germany attacked Belgium

At the WW1 article nothing is said about neighter Alfred von Schlieffeln not von Moltke the younger and the in-case-of-two-front-wars-on-Germany-plans. And Germany did ask Belgium for free passage befor they had to declare war on them. It was no "rape" - this comes from british war time propaganda only. Omly at the frontline civilians suffered. There were still belgian authorities during WW1 unlike during WW2. Britain WANTED to join the war (as everybody else) if they should be on the french och central side was NOT an easy question. At the navy question Germany had became an equal opponant, and France was sabotaging British plans in Africa (just as the Boer had done 15 years earlier). Dont try to heoizing the UK during WW1 - that war was for kings and empires only, but at the cost of millions of soldiers of both sides. HOW this conflict so suddenly could arise is the most importaint historical issue of the last century - it must be described AS IT WAS, not as the war-time propaganda of that time said. The enire article is from brittish point of view, silly and dangerous. Germany really HAD to concider war both in the east and in the west. Therefore Belgium was a necessary not very bloody for the civilians sacrifice.

Pontus Eriksson, historican , Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser?

Hiya. An IP has asked to contact you re a checkuser on their IP address? I don't know much about such things, but their attempted effort to contact you is at:

Hello, Nishkid64. You have new messages at 198.86.93.85's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Am I right to alert you? Trafford09 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop vandalising conversion disorder or your account will be blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.46.229 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amarnath_land_transfer_controversy&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobel_laureates_of_India&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chittisinghpura_massacre&action=history

Here are a few pages that were missed Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for correcting me .

thanks for correcting me . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanter (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me know about u ? r u any authority ?

let me know about u ? r u any authority ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanter (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating an old checkuser request

Hi, I believe that the checkuser procedure has changed, but WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard has been updated according to the (outdated) instructions which were on the original request. Could you have a look at it and move it to the correct location if necessary? I apologize if I've misinterpreted the procedures, as I don't have any experience in this matter. Thanks, MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

socks at Illuminati ?

Nishkid, have you run a check user on Liam and Illuminati721? Are they definitely socks? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. They're both on the same IP. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case his vandalism on my user page (and his excuse for it) is more serious. I will let it slide for now, but if he does not mend his disruptive ways, I will raise it at ANI. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Thanks for protecting the page to try to get more discussion rather then edit warring. Ward20 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Bangalore Meetup

Following the Mailing list discussion that we had, here's a call for an informal meetup of Bangalore Wikipedians soon. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore3 -- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indophbia

It’s inappropriate to clump together the edit on text books with “Contemporary societal Indophobia" it makes no sense and is misleading and requires a separate title as it describing phobias of Indians against others not INDOPHOBIA cheers 86.162.69.84 (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be added under the Pakistan section to indicate textbooks in India are also affected by racism? 86.162.69.84 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the same could be said about the Pakistan section which is based on purely hinduism maybe you should delete that as the sources for those are actually synthesised 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saffronisation is a form of cultural racism whitewashing history is also a form of cultural racism do you not agree? this is what is being done to text books so its entirely relevant 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection the Pakistani section seems sloppy and highly irrelevant it only talks about war not cultural bias such as depiction on media or books the only relevant bit is at the end 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing the article is based on racism around South Asians including Pakistanis and Bengalis and on there religion which include hinduism AND islam unless you want to change to whole aim of the article and base it solely on Indians and Hinduism? so its relevant to talk of indian text books aswell as Pakistani ones you cannot simply pick out pakistani issues while completely ignoring the issue of indian text books and there bias hope you see my point cheers 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something which I stumbled over http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Chatterji07.htm could this be integrated into the article the reach of radical hinduism seems very far 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how Hindu extremism belongs in an article about Indophobia. I was originally accepting of the textbook controversy, but on second glance, it looks to be a purely religiously-motivated issue. At the same time, I would have gladly removed the bit about Pakistani textbooks, but the source states that the Indophobia was geared against Indians and Hindus. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, what does Nazism have to do with Indophobia? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anti islamic prejudices are related to anti pakistani and bengali sentiment they both are muslim nations 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"as barbarous invaders and the medieval period as a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu empire that preceded it" certainly implies muslims aka all muslims in south asia including pakistanis and bengalis 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic makes no sense. If it makes you feel any better, I'll add this to Islam in India. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic lol your logic of allowing pov pushers like wikireader41 to edit makes no sense this sort of protectionism and having a one sided article makes pov pushing more prolific goodbye and i guess ill habe to keep reverting then 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive_58

Leave a Reply