User talk:Chai Walla

Great trip

Chai Walla, just wanted to let you know I got back to Austin just fine last night. That was one great trip to Albuquerque and Taos. That game of pass-the-laptop you and User:Baba Louis were playing at the Hilton and that cybercafe in Taos was hilarious! I almost regret my decision not to play. That guy must have had no idea that he was dealing with two people actually talking to each other in person about who was going to say what. Perhaps we could keep up the game by email? Let me know on my talk page when you get back to Seattle, okay? You know how I worry about plane flights... Adityanath 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CW, thanks for letting me know you arrived safely. Oh, and it seems User:Hamsacharya dan got suspended for his many reverts on your additions to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. I think User:Baba Louis finally had enough and reported him for breaking the 3 revert rule. Adityanath 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I've responded to your queries on my talk page. Take a look when you have a moment. Hamsacharya dan 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan

Hi Chai Walla, when you get a chance, take a look at the Request for Comment on Hamsadan's conduct. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hamsacharya dan. I know he still considers you a sockpuppet so I'll understand if you don't comment. On the other hand, if you sign with a note like I did, perhaps the "sockpuppet" ruling will be revisited so we can be cleared of that charge. I'm so tired of HD slinging that false mud around as an excuse not to discuss his changes to articles. Up to you.... —Hanuman Das 06:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's prove you are not my sockpuppet

Here's what to do. Log out, and go post on User:Hamsacharya dan's talk page, here. Be sure to mentiion your name and sign with 4 tildes. This will show your IP address. —Hanuman Das 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can use this on the RfC to prove you are not a sockpuppet. Sign once while logged in, then log out and resign with your IP address. —66.68.112.85 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with article?

I got your name from Hanuman Das. I created a stub for the word "dhuni" but am not really knowledgable about this ritual. However many sites mention it. I had thought it was of Zoroastrian origen, but apparently I was wrong. I cannot find any good sources on its origen. Can you help? Thank you. See Dhuni article. Chris 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Actually, it seems Hamsadan has inadvertently created precisely the poll you have asked for: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidhoji Rao Shitole. Be sure to sign with IP address as well as username. —Hanuman Das 03:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sidhoji rao shitole

I don't want the edit history of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to be removed via the move, and I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia would not let that happen anyway. But to be very clear about my intentions, I am letting you know this now. I would request that per our agreement we work on the stripped down version on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/temp, whose final version I will absolutely comply with moving to YGS as long as it stays truly NPOV (as I've already assured you that I would). As you appear to be the most level headed of the three of you, If you can calm Hanuman Das down and be content with a redirect, this will save us all time and will work toward resolution. We can set a date to move the temp version over to the main page as an article edit - not as a page move. This will preserve the edit history on the main page. I think this is a very good compromise - everybody gets what they want. Hamsacharya dan 00:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

If you have any spare time, I've been trying to stop a couple of edit warriors on a couple of articles. If you could put the following on your watch list:

The warriors are Frater FiatLux, Zanoni666, and Kephera975 who keep trying to push POV into the articles. The good guys who are trying to take the articles forward via discussion on the talk page are JMax555, SynergeticMaggot (signs "Zos"), and Ehheh keep taking it back to neutral articles. Some small amount of progress has been made with a paragraph from the warrior bunch being approved by consensus and added to the article, but this just seemed to make them madder. ---Baba Louis 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra

I just wanted to let you know that this terrible article on Tantra is being rewritten from scratch with proper references and citations at Tantra/temp. Perhaps you could contribute if you have time? -999 (Talk) 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Allegation

Sorry if I've unfairly tarred you with this. I'm still looking into it. Because of the previous confirmation through CheckUser, I made the decision to put the tag on your page. However I've seen the explanation of all three of you (User:Hanuman Das and User:Baba Louis) using the same laptop on a trip together and will try to sort things through. Thanks for your patience. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair Block

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).

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

Request reason:

not a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppet. An unblock request is not the right forum to dispute this, please contact the blocking admin directly. -- Yamla 17:05, 30 January 2007 (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.

My IP address is blocked from editing. This action was taken by User:Thatcher131. I have emailed him to protest my innocence, but have not heard back. A note on his user page says he is very busy. The reason for this block is the incorrect allegation that I am a of sockpuppet of Hanuman Das/Ekajati per [[1]] It is true that I travelled with Adityanath and shared a laptop when I opened my account as stated in the case page. My interest in Wikipedia was aroused when I was shown a page which contained what I believed to be spurious information. I wanted to help. I had no idea at the time, that logging into an account behind the same router could come back to haunt me with the allegations I now face and a block. I have discussed and edited on the WP in good faith during my entire time on this project. After returning to the Northwest I have logged in with the same IP address in all instances. I remain interested in the content of a few very limited areas. My problem is now twofold.

One, I am damned as a sockpuppet when I am not. Two, my personal IP address is now involved, though no violation has occurred or admonishment for editing behavior at this IP address. I have edited in Wikipedia on this, my only account since March of 2006. Last evening, I was blocked out of the blue. It has been alleged that I am a sockpuppet of Adityanath (per the checkuser of March 2006 while on the road), who is a sockpuppet of Hamuman Das who is a sockpuppet of Ekajati. In this way, Ekajati is evading a two month ban. This is is not accurate and I have been sucked into a disciplinary dragnet involving another user and his/her socks. I would welcome advice and help as I am now in unchartered waters. Any advice or help would be much appreciated to resolve this mess which I never ever anticipated nor caused by my own editing behavior.Chai Walla 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yamla, I have of course attempted to discuss with the blocking admin Thatcher131, but to no avail, hence the tag. I have written, but don't think that spamming his inbox with protestations of innocence is likely to further my cause. I understand that the admins have a tough job and must make tough decisions. I can also appreciate that in the case of a blocking action, they do so with considered action. In this case however, I am soley guilty by association. I didn't put Suzies pigtail in the inkwell or commit any offense of any kind. Oh well, its not the end of the world, though it is a bit ironic. I did learn a great deal however about the workings of the WP. I'll chalk up the death of Chai_Walla as a casuality of the greater good. Perhaps I'll clean off my user page in a few days and fade into WP oblivion. We'll see...Chai Walla 09:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]