Archives

July 1, 2006 - August 20, 2006 August 21, 2006 - August 30, 2006 August 31, 2006 - September 29, 2006 September 30, 2006 - October 6, 2006 October 7, 2006 - October 12, 2006 October 13, 2006 - October 19, 2006 October 19, 2006 - October 27, 2006 October 27, 2006 - November 6, 2006 November 7, 2006 - November 14, 2006 November 14, 2006 - November 23, 2006 November 23, 2006 - December 3, 2006 December 3, 2006 - December 9, 2006 December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006 December 17, 2006 - December 26, 2006 December 26, 2006 - December 31, 2006 December 31, 2006 - January 5, 2007 January 6, 2007 - January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 - January, 22, 2007 January 23, 2007 - January 29, 2007 January 29, 2007 - February 7, 2007 February 7, 2007 - February 16, 2007 February 16, 2007 - February 22, 2007 February 22, 2007 - March 2, 2007 March 2, 2007 - March 10, 2007 March 10, 2007 - March 23, 2007 March 25, 2007 - April 19, 2007 April 20, 2007 - April 30, 2007 April 30, 2007 - May 14, 2007 May 14, 2007 - June 3, 2007 June 3, 2007 - June 19, 2007 June 19, 2007 - July 10, 2007 July 11, 2007 - September 15, 2007 September 17, 2007 - October 3, 2007 October 4, 2007 - October 15, 2007 October 15, 2007 - November 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 - November 19, 2007 November 20, 2007 - December 14, 2007 December 14, 2007 - January 3, 2008 January 3, 2008 - January 17, 2008 January 18, 2008 - February 6, 2008 February 7, 2008 - March 3, 2008 March 3, 2008 - March 24, 2008 March 24, 2008 - April 23, 2008 April 23, 2008 - May 15, 2008 May 15, 2008 - June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 - July 9, 2008 July 9, 2008 - July 29, 2008 July 29, 2008 - August 20, 2008 August 20, 2008 - September 12, 2008 September 12, 2008 - October 21, 2008 October 21, 2008 - December 1, 2008 December 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008 January 1, 2009 - January 24, 2009 January 25, 2009 - February 17, 2009 February 17, 2009 - March 20, 2009 March 20, 2009 - April 9, 2009 April 9, 2009 - May 5, 2009 May 7, 2009 - Present

• 86.160.112.4 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. CAn't believe there's so much hagiography Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.158.178.91 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.153.132.231 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.153.129.95 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.128.233 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me know about u ? r u any authority ?

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]

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

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]

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]

You keep editing my additions to Kissinger's entry. His main contribution to US foreign policy was, as I wrote, support for military dictatorships and US wars of aggression. Detente with the USSR was another of his policies but that had little effect on the world at large whereas the illegal slaughter of millions of South East Asians was a huge crime and almost equal in numbers of killed to the holocaust of jews by the Nazis, if you don't think information of such importance should be added, that's just your amoral, unhistorical point of view. I'm simply adding crucial facts to the page. What's your agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of Veiw?? That Kissinger was a proponent of US support for right-wing military dictators all over Latin America is a neutral FACT not a point of view. That he, along with Nixon ordered the mass killings of millions of civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are established historical facts. What does a 'neutral point of view' mean? I don't think it means whitewashing the record of atrocities commited by powerful figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Louis XIV, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette seem to be the most hit by vandalism. Is there anyway you could semi-protect these articles?? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the level of vandalism on those pages does not "qualify" for page protection. It's still being managed quite nicely by page watchlisters like yourself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What right do you have to revert my changes to the Pinochet article? Can you find anything that doesn't verify what I said? He was a dictator, he killed many and he did so with the saupport of western governments. Wikipedia should be telling the truth and not telling things in a "nice" way that sounds good to ignorant and feeble American values.--217.203.185.53 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this request: [1] I would appreciate your comment there. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64 appears to delete many true and established but unpleasant truths about murderous right-wing people such as Henry Kissinger and Gen Pinochet - both responsible for hideous crimes against humanity. Wikipedia is a source by and for THE PEOPLE, not the untouchable elite powers-that-be and those who seek to sanitise and whitewash the truth about people who have had a terrible impact on thousands of lives. In the last few days Nishkid has sanitised enties about both of these characters. My additional info about Kissiger was deleted with a message that Wiki enties should be 'neutral' - which apparently means conforming to the elite view that American Power and it's clients should not be presented in a manner that reflects the moral horror of their actions. If you want to write a nice loving, patriotic hagiography of Kissinger, go ahead but Wiki is democratic and should reflect the moral truth as seen by the masses not the elite. The elite already have the mass media and TV to whitewash their crimes, let's not use Wiki to further their lies and excuses. Yes, Kissinger was a proponent of 'realpolitik' which is a journalistic term that means very little in the real world, whereas the illegal mass bombings of Cambodia and Laos caused incredible amounts of damage and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. If 9/11 was considered an important event, then consider Kissinger's bombings as A HUNDRED TIMES MORE SERIOUS in terms of innocent people killed. Neutral??? Your deletion is anything but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.45.119 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Hello Nishikid, thanks for the message about my edits on that rascal Kissinger. You wrote: 'you insist on presenting Kissinger as some murderous criminal (which I agree with, but that's here nor there).' If you agree with that idea, I assume it's because you are aware of the tragic histories of Cambodia and Laos and the part he played in it. Realpolitik is a fancy word that doesn't quite, in my mind, really convey the essense of mass murder as national policy. I'm sure Kissinger, the American establishment and conservatives everywhere would prefer the term realpolitik but why is it the editorial policy of Wiki admins to delete truths inconvenient to authority. The blatant bias in favour of establishment friendly waffle instead of the unpleasant truth is called 'neutral' by Wiki admins, but it is far from neutral - it is a clear bias in favour protecting the powerful from the reality of their actions being more widely known. If the term 'realpolitik' implies supporting right-wing dictators and using massive violence against civilians it is clearly a euphemism employed by the US gov to hide a hideous truth - why should Wiki use the same invented euphemism to hide the truth when its mission is clearly to educate and inform. As I said above, ther mainstream US media exists to churn out Government friendly propaganda about Us wars, but why does Wiki have to follow the same devious path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly take a look at Sikh Terrorism which should point to Sikh Extremism! It is an article, where since its inception has been edited to the point of invisibility by pro-extremists who wish to hide facts about the recent violence in Austria and basically fragment the article into less relative satellite articles which have no relevance to many actual reported news referenced articles which have been subsequently deleted removed or hijacked. Thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please stop spamming every editor on Wikipedia and claiming to be a victim.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Nishkid64's information, I have received similar posts from the above two users. There is clearly some bad blood and a lot of pre-history between them. Rather than delve into that, I have looked at the article and posted my views on its current state at [[2]]. No doubt another pair of fresh eyes will be useful, especially fromsomeone with that battery of stars on their user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad blood, but I want people to be clear with what kind of person we are dealing with.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burma&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears that my talkpage semiprotection has expired. Since I don't like Nangparbat being able to leave any message on my talkpage, can I have my talkpage semiprotection renewed? Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With compliments. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 9 June 2009 Nishkid64 deleted "The Maya Calendar and the European Agenda" (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance).

So in your opinion a documentary about Prodesis (yes, click on it!) does not assert any significance? Do you know there are ways of communicating your doubts on Wikipedia? "TALK" for instance? Mirrormundo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the explanation. but what about the article i wrote about Prodesis, shouldn't that be removed too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrormundo (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

On 28th June, without any on-record discussion, The Diamond Apex was indefinitely blocked. You claim the account was a sockpuppet account of MarshallBagramyan. [3] What evidence do you have to back up that claim, given that there are no editing similarities between the two accounts? Why is there no record of the allegation being discussed? Were you acting on behalf of another administrator when you made the checkuser request? Meowy 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the accusations leveled against me by Jayvdb, I decided to not to run the CU on The Diamond Apex. I asked YellowMonkey offline to run the CU for me. The early contribs of The Diamond Apex made me immediately suspicious that it was a sock account. After reviewing the account's history of contribs and the edit wars it participated in, I reasoned that it might be a banned Armenian editor. I was a bit shocked by the CU result, to be honest. Marshall has privately admitted that the account belonged to his roommate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid

I have a question for you. If Sarandioti and I Pakapshem resume edit warring when their blocks expire (as I have a feeling they will), what should I do? I am asking, because after interacting with them, I have realized discussion is futile. Please see this thread User talk:EdJohnston#Disruption in Albania articles I left of User:EdJohnston's page where I outline the problem. Sarandioti is a nationalist editor who has embarked on a single-minded quest to remove the Greek names from cities in southern Albania as well as any reference to said minority. I suspect I Pakapshem is meat-puppet recruited by him to help him with the edit-warring. This is a relatively new account created shortly after that of Sarandioti who has done nothing but edit-war over almost exactly the same articles as Sarandioti. While I take great care to carefully source my additions to such contentious articles with top-notch sources [4] [5], both Sarandioti and Pakapshem disingenuously dismiss them with edit summaries such as these [6] [7] [8] [9], or act as if the source doesn't exist [10]. How can I be expected to carry on a reasonable discussion with such editors, who leave edit summaries such as these [11] and who are always threatening to "report" [12] people? But as this ANI thread shows [13] perhaps most disturbing of all is that this latest bout of instability appears to be the result of a coordinated off-wiki recruitment drive. User:I Pakapshem is a member [14] of this extremist Albanian website [15], which Sarandioti seems thoroughly familiar with as the creation of his XXxLRKistxxX sock shows. While it may appear that Alexikoua and I bear equal responsibility for the latest bout of edit-warring, we are both highly experienced users (I have 2 years experience with 3300+ edits) who have nothing but respect for wikipedia's rules. By contrast, we are seeing an invasion by a co-ordinated group of extremists who stop at nothing to push their POV, and we are equated with them! So tell me, what should I do under such circumstances? --Athenean (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of these concerns, so I await Nishkid's answer with interest! If Sarandioti made any promises of good behavior by email to Nishkid, maybe he could be asked to share those assurances on his own Talk page. WP:ARBMAC allows admins to impose various kinds of bans and restrictions when they detect nationalist edit-warring, and that might be considered as well. I had this idea: Any editor who appears to be a single-purpose nationalist account dedicated to removal of names in other languages may be topic banned from articles on Romanian topics. They can still participate on Talk pages. Anybody like that solution? EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Ed. I think a topic-ban from the article mainspace is the only effective way to deal with such editors. Since it is easy to avoid the charge of being "single-purpose nationalist account dedicated to removal of names in other languages" by performing a token number of unrelated edits (as Sarandioti does), I would amend your proposal to include "or who edits in bad faith by using spurious edit summaries and gaming the system , and/or who has a battleground mentality". An example of such bad faith editing can be seen in the diffs I have provided above. A gaming-the-system mentality can also be evidenced from these posts by Sarandioti and Pakapshem [16] [17] [18]. They seem to think they are entitled to 3R per 24 hours. This diff here also shows a clear battleground, score-settling, mentality [19]. But most disturbing of all are the attempts at off-wiki recruitment and coordination. This is extremely disruptive and wikipedia's strucutre has few built-in defenses against this. I think users who engage in such behavior should be site-banned outright. I also assume you mean "Balkan" instead of "Romanian", Ed? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]