User talk:Chedorlaomer

Welcome!

Hello, Chedorlaomer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point i think. In Akbar's reign people of Hindoo race were forced to wear yellow patches or in local language "tukda" for easy identification.^[1] Hitler's reign had the same thing happen to jewish community. No claim is made one influenced the other rather just pointed out the similarity of treatment of Hindoos and Jews. There is nothing original research here.

Two facts: 1) Akbar's realm had targeting of individuals by making them wear a small cloth piece.

2) Nazis had a similar thing done in there realm.

Why can't both things be said in the same article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source it is clear that Hindoo race was made to wear a patch on their clothes so that they could be identified. Same was the requirement on Jewish race when they were asked to wear a patch so that they could be identified by the nazis. Just identical facts from two different times. This is not in realm of original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hyenas

I do not understand your assertion. The word Persecution is widely used in describing endangered animals. Using hyenas as baiting animals or hunting them by roping them out of their dens is not extermination.Dark hyena (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Doug Hanks

A tag has been placed on Doug Hanks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Truthanado (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus

La dee da. What on earth could the sockpuppet who keeps going on about including the painting expect? A Sniper (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to edit or expand what I placed at the Lee page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ישו לפעמים גורם לנו לחייך A Sniper (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on how to do the refs on the List of UFO sightings page. Anarwan (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo large edits. It is considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and farming quotes to push an obvious agenda isn't. And using sources very selectively to push an agenda isn't. Chedorlaomer (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? No framing quotes. Copying from the book gven in citations. Please stop your vandalism. Consider this your last warning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another AGF-violating accusation of "vandalism." You are plugging in material from a primary source. You aren't supposed to farm quotes like this. These quotes are often used by Hindu nationalists, communalists, and perhaps some Marxists to support the image of Mughal emperors as anti-Hindu jihadis, but scholars generally are hesitant to take them at face value because there is great potential that the degree of ideological motivation is exaggerated to make the king look pious. Chedorlaomer (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar at WP#ANI

hi , sorry for the delay in replying. I cannot devote much time to WP any longer due to other commitments and may have to take time off for a couple of months. I did not check the books in themselves but followed the references from the article and found that they were mostly limited previews from which he drew his own conclusions. I cant promise anything due to lack of time but Ill see what I can do.--Deepak D'Souza 09:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I checked it and it seems like it has been archived. Maybe the oly option left is to watch the article and keep out the trash. --Deepak D'Souza 09:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chedorlaomer

Just curious - why did you choose this nick? (Hope you approve of the edits being done on your namesake's article) PiCo (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly into Biblical Studies or anything. One day I was thinking about the mystery of Abraham. The irony of Abraham is that he has been such a significant historical figure to many peoples, yet it is difficult to actually place him in history. Perhaps some would be inclined to simply dismiss him as a mythical hero. To me, however, the account of Chedorlaomer and the battle has more elements of historical reality than most myth. The detailed listing of each of the kings involved, the lame but realistic cause of difficulty (bitumen pits), and precise, un-magical number (318) of warriors sent to recover Lot... this story seems more an excerpt from a genuine chronicle than a fantastic piece of myth or speculation. The thinking, then, is that if Chedorlaomer could be identified, then so could Abraham be placed in history (assuming he wasn't inserted into the story for unspecified reasons). Unfortunately, Chedorlaomer is a mystery too. I admit: this thinking isn't very original (hence the numerous attempts to identify him), but nevertheless it happened to be my thinking back on the wonderful summer day I made the account to stomp on some shameless self-promotion/advertising. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) PiCo (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, too. Thanks for the very interesting explanation. Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Winnenden school shooting. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem ♠Dil 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been working out a talk page post that I will post soon. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Doug Hanks

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Doug Hanks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:1E. Not notable as a politician. That he was possibly racist on top of wanting to be a politician doesn't make him any more notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Murderers who played video games?

I am struggling to see how this is relevant. Perhaps the young man was influenced by video games to some degree or another, but you must ask the question: who under the age of about 20 these days has NOT played a video game at least once in his or her life? Should we also add that he watched movies, swore occasionally, and perhaps picked his nose? The killer was obviously deranged, and had other problems in his life much bigger than a few general hobbies. Hayden120 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The item is relevant because, wrong or right, the possible connection between violent video games and spree shootings is often brought up by press, notable voices, politicians, etc. after some kid goes crazy and shoots up the school. I wouldn't even be able to create the category without that media coverage. The finger is pointed at violent video games, and also to some extent similar movies. Anyway, I created the category in hopes that the cases where "played video games" was noted or even blamed by the media could be looked at side-by-side for research purposes. Maybe you will look at all of the cases and decide that there was no element of causation behind the causation. I'm not trying to say that video games caused it; the category is designed to help better understand the debate. Should I, perhaps, change it to "violent video games" to be fair on puzzle players? Or does this still seem unreasonable to you? Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Spree shooters who played video games

I have nominated Category:Spree shooters who played video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

try this

HereFord 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a "bad hand" account, but rather my main account. The other account (which I would like to avoid mentioned by name if possible) was created later because I had made some IP edits on a certain topic back in September, and I felt nervous about connecting my main account to my IP (because my IP is revealing), so I left the IP to almost exclusively edit that topic, and in December created an account just to do the IP's editing. Chedorlaomer has remained my account for everything else. The two accounts did not edit any articles in common, leave alone engage in abuse of multiple accounts.

Decline reason:

Until I know what the other account is, there's really no effective way for me to review this. However, if your main concern is that you edited while logged out, oversight is usually willing to zap those edits in order to hide that information. --slakr^\ talk / 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I generally believe that it is unadvisable to use one account mainly for reverting and another for serene purposes. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is need for clarification. The recent flurry of reverts were against banned user:Hkelkar sock puppets. The other account might appear more "serene" simply because I restrict the topics edited by that account, and overall it does not see as much editing. Chedorlaomer (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have restored the Request for unblock category. Sandstein placed the block on hold but apparently stopped following this case even after the blocking administrator responded. Can someone please contact Sandstein if that is needed? Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in case this takes some time, I have identified another sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar, 72.179.41.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please notify User:Nishkid64, an administrator who is familiar with the case. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this off hold for someone else to review. Sandstein 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To slakr: The other account can be found by looking through the blocking administrator's log. You might notice that I am trying to prevent a connection between my main account (this account) and my IP address (which the other account is openly connected to). This fishing block has, of course, damaged this attempt, but I would really damage it by stating openly the account's name on this page. If you see the other account, you will notice that the two do not edit on the same topics whatsoever. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "[[Category:Requests for unblock]]" from this page; you should never include the category directly but rather post a new {{unblock}} request. I will mention your argument to YellowMonkey, but you should post a new unblock request if you still want to be considered. Mango juice^talk 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added that because it hadn't been taken off hold at that time. I don't see why slakr "declined" even while admitting that he cannot figure out enough about the case. I guess I'll have to add the unblock request again. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey has recently commented of me: "He has two accounts. He cannot use one to revert, and another for normal editing in the same zone. Teh other account is not longer blocked. Not all the edits reverted are by Hkelkar." First of all, these accounts do not edit in "the same zone" as I deliberately keep the topics separate (in hopes of preventing an obvious connection between this account and the other because the other is linked to my IP). I do not think that there has been overlap on even a single article. Second, and perhaps more significantly, this edit is not "one to revert" while the other is "for normal editing." Both accounts have had a share of mundane edits, reverts, talk page discussion, &c. This account edits a broader range of topics than the other, but it is certainly not a "revert" "bad hand" of the other account. Simply put, there was no abuse of multiple accounts. Chedorlaomer (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block, allegedly for abuse of multiple accounts, does not prevent disruption because there was no "abuse" of multiple accounts in the first place. I've explained my case in greater detail on this page, with responses to the blocking admin. I assert that the blocking admin is mistaken about my accounts, and I would like another review, preferably by an admin who is willing to look through the block log to figure out the name of the other account, which I do not want to state openly because it is connected to my IP. It may also be better to move this whole situation to a higher board of discussion as it has dragged out without fair resolution, and also because there appears to be no good reason to use Checkuser privilege against my account; it lacked due process.

Decline reason:

Please review WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH. Neither of these are legitimate uses of sockpuppetry. Khoi khoi 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have reviewed these already. I argued against these allegations. Your response does not address my case. There is nothing abusive about my use of multiple accounts. Apparently getting involved in disputes makes an account unclean, and the other account has been involved in disputes, so it must not be "clean" by this definition as well. The accounts did not, however, edit on the same articles at all, so there was no attempt to play with a dispute in different ways as might be expected for the GHBH accounts. As for the SCRUTINY, the desire to conceal connection to IP is "security," and security is identified as a legitimate use.

At this point, I would like to move this case to a higher board where a wider audience of experienced users may consider the substance of my defense against the accusation of multiple account abuse. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to email WP:ARBCOM if you want but I doubt they would consider your case. Anyway, I've reviewed your two accounts, and while I don't think this is a "bad hand" account, exactly, I do not see the kind of separation between these accounts that would indicate your use of these accounts is appropriate. Normally, if you have a concern that certain contributions are in a sensitive area, you could have a second account to keep those contributions separate. But your other account looks like a main account. Could you explain the purpose of your two accounts more precisely? Mango juice^talk 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account I started in August editing things in general. In September I edited a topic on the IP address. I felt that it would not be best to connect my main account to the IP address because the IP address seems revealing. I didn't (and still do not) feel comfortable connecting my full range of editing to my IP address, since this compromises anonymity. So, I edited the topic on IP for months afterward, and eventually started an account restricted to those topics edited by IP to make the editing easier and so that people would stop calling me anon. Under IP and its associated account, I generally stuck to the original topic but occasionally entered into other topics either upon request or because it not make sense for me to use Chedorlaomer, and I have always tried to avoid making the connection obvious because that would connect the IP to this account. The restriction of the IP-associated editing to just a few topics preserves anonymity by giving the IP a less distinctive appearance while still allowing me to edit on the topic. The separation between the two accounts is nearly absolute, without overlap on any article that I can see.

Basically, then, the other account restricts only to the IP editing topics, while this account is open to everything else but will not edit on the topics of the other account. In the end, I cannot see anything about the accounts that can suggest that I am abusing multiple accounts. I just do not see the basis; the separation originates in security concerns, and I do not use multiple accounts to get around blocks (I do not have any blocks anyway until the fishing incident) or play around with different sides of a dispute or whatever else might be called "bad hand." I do get in disputes, with both accounts, but these are content disputes without relation to each other. The real question about this block is whether or not I employ multiple accounts in an abusive manner, and I say confidently that I do not. I do not know why I was Checked without any due process or even reason for suspicion (which the documentation strongly recommends) but it has damaged my attempt to continue my editing in relative anonymity. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to get at is that I don't understand what the "restricted topic" is. You pretty much appear to have two main accounts. You can email me if you want to be so careful about your anonymity. Mango juice^talk 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent email. Chedorlaomer (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Doug Hanks

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Doug Hanks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Hanks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Indian Shipping - Les Hindous.jpg

The file File:Indian Shipping - Les Hindous.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (1968). Panjāb Under the Great Mughals, 1526-1707. Thacker. p. 128.

[1] Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (1968). Panjāb Under the Great Mughals, 1526-1707. Thacker. p. 128.

[1]