User talk:Perusnarpk

Away

I will be away till about August 10, 2008 and may not be able to respond to messages posted here till then. Perusnarpk (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Perusnarpk, 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! --El on ka 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

I have copied and pasted some of my replies from the talk pages of some of the other editors below here to maintain continuity on this page Perusnarpk (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perusnarpk, I see that you want to add some controversial material to articles about Michael Atiyah. Forgive me if I am wrong but it looks like you are relatively new to Wikipedia. I have been around a long time and would like to give you some constructive advice.

When it comes to articles about living people, we hold ourselves to a standard far, far stricter than other articles. This is out of both an ethical obligation not to let our encyclopedia become a vehicle for attacking living people, and also a legal obligation not to risk coming close to violating any laws concerning libel. We are not a newspaper, reporting on current events (although we will have articles on current events that are sufficiently notable and uncontrovesial), we are an encyclopedia dedicated to spreading established knowledge. Yes, knowledge itself can sometimes be very controversial, and we have policies I know you are familiar with that enable us to write about controveries in responsible ways. But when the controversy has to do with a living person, the stakes - that we might (even if it is just a slight possibility) unfairly defame someone, or that we might (again, even if the risk seems pretty small) make ourselves vulnerable to a lawsuit or accusations of libel - we just avoid the topic. It is the job of newspapers and other news media to cover such controversies in full, not that of an encyclopedia. So we bend over backwards to be cautious, even if it seems overcautious!

In part, our WP:BLP policy reads:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

This is why many editors resist some of the material you want to add. It doesn't matter what you think are the merits of your position. When it comes to living persons, we simply do not take risks. Please don't take it personally, this is an established and important policy at Wikipedia that all experienced editors support.

I am sure that there are many other things you know about and am sure there are other articles you can help improve; we sure would welcome that! Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your message, Slrubenstein. I understand that BLP's on Wikipedia must follow very strict standards; a conservative policy makes a lot of sense for the reasons that you mention. That is why I wanted to discuss, on the talk page, whether the evidence in this case was strong enough to support inclusion. I also started a thread on this at the RS noticeboard to discuss whether the sources involved should be considered reliable. If the consensus is that they are not reliable I will not attempt any additions to the page.

However, I was shocked to find that it was quite difficult to have an honest discussion because of he User:Fowler&fowler decided to respond with ad-hominem attacks on me and the other parties involved. As you mention, the BLP policy is quite strict. I understand that this should be relaxed for talk pages, but here is what User:Fowler&fowler had to say about Prof. Raju the other party involved in this dispute: (emphasis mine)

"Wiki-mischief by supporters of an unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_Petition_signed_by_Eminent_Academics_a_RS.3F

"Pure Wiki-mischief by supporters of a scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_Petition_signed_by_Eminent_Academics_a_RS.3F

"C. K. Raju incidentally is the same nutjob who has been claiming that calculus was invented in India and, through Jesuit contacts, made its way to Europe..."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah/Archive_2

"That CK Raju is no Ramanujan is amply evidenced in the pathetic correspondence to be found in this package prepared by Raju." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah

"Raju is not even remotely in the league above (be it red-linked or blue). A JSTOR search reveals only one paper, not in pure or applied mathematics, but in the philosophy of mathematical education. I won't say that it is a piece of unmitigated fluff, but I would strongly encourage you to read it." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah

This is in addition to several personal attacks on me and other editors. Given Wikipedia's conservative policy implemented to protect the reputation of living people, why are poorly sourced and baseless statements of the kind allowed to stand. I would like to file a formal complaint about this, particularly since F&f was warned both on the talk page and by User:CBM on his talk page to desist from personal attacks.

Furthermore, User:Mathsci, at one point, decided to call me and some other editors Indian extremists. I have never revealed my nationality to him or to any other editor so I do not know how he arrived a the conclusion that I was Indian. Nor is it clear to me how my presumed ethnicity has any bearing upon the discussion. In my opinion this is tantamount to a racial slur. Second (and less seriously), User:Mathsci has made persistent allegations that I am a sockpuppet for User:Bharatveer which is verifiably untrue. In fact, this has prevented discussion of the topic at the RS noticeboard.

Please advise me what I should do about this. Perusnarpk (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most detailed and useful advice you can receive. I suggest you listen to Slrubenstein and stop pressing this matter on Michael Atiyah. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perusnarpk, note that it's not only Mathsci and F+F who are against the inclusion of such material to the article. There's at least a handful of other editors who were against the proposal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64. Thanks for your comments on the living bio noticeboard. I understand your criticism about lack of mainstream media attention. My question, already raised on the RS noticeboard, is that (1) if you look through the talk page, no one had disputed the facts; that Atiyah was informed of Raju's work and yet approved the publication of an article claiming credit for an idea that he himself judged to be very promising. (2) there is a strongly worded petition signed by 35 very eminent academics that clearly supports Raju's allegations of academic misconduct.

The logic behind using mainstream media as an RS is that an editor or a journalist puts his/her reputation on the line. Here, 35 academics including Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, Harish Trivedi, MGK Menon and others have stated that there seems a prima facie case of misconduct. To my mind this is far more reliable than a mainstream media source. However, perhaps Wikipedia's policies are the opposite and only a mainstream media source is acceptable, not a petition signed by eminent academics.

I have repeatedly asked this question on the talk page and not received an answer. I did receive an answer on the RS notice board but that was based on a misreading of my original post.

Perhaps you have an answer to this question. Is it only the mainstream media that is reliable? Or does a petition with signatories far more eminent that you are likely to find in a typical newspaper also acceptable? thanks,

P.S: If you have an answer to this question I would appreciate if you would post it on the RS notice board where I have raised this question. While I am grateful for your friendly advice, I am a bit disinclined towards long bilateral conversations here, on my talk page or on yours. thanks again Perusnarpk (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot respond to all your comments on my talk page but i do have two points. first, one need not be Indian to be an Indian nationalist; Indian nationalist describes a political position, not a national identity. More important: you remark that you wanted to discuss how strong the evidence was. You misunderstand my note to you about WP:BLP. The issue is not how strong the evidence is - especially since Wikipedia is not a court, and it is simply not the business of Wikipedia editors to weigh evidence in favor or against any position (which violates WP:NPOV); weighing evidence violates NPOV (what editors DO weigh is how notable the view is, and how reliable the source is; this is very different from weighing the evidence for or against an argument. No, my point was something else - the question is how inflammatory or defamatory or damaging to the living person is the claim? No matter how much evidence, it is not for Wikipedia to defame someone else and to do so could create massive trouble for Wikipedia. My final question remains - aren't there non-controversial things you know about? Aren't there other articles you can help us improve? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with your comment on my talk page. There was no political discussion regarding India and certainly no occassio for User:Mathsci to conclude that I was an "Indian nationalist". I note that this is not the defense he has given himself, because if it were, I would be even more annoyed since my political positions are quite the opposite of those held by Indian nationalists and I certainly said nothing in the scientific discussion to suggest otherwise. Your invention of this defense seems to suggest bias.

I think that his comments are a clear "ethnic epithet" directed against another contributor and violate your policy of No Personal Attacks. Second, your comment "No matter how much evidence, it is not for Wikipedia to defame someone else and to do so could create massive trouble for Wikipedia" suggests that under no circumstances will Wikipedia include controversial information about somebody? Surely, you are not serious. I note an entire page devoted to criticism of Noam Chomsky. The question here is, as you stated in your original post that the onus of proof is upon me. That if I wish to include this material in the biography, I must produce reliable sources to back up the claim that a controversy exists. It seems to me that in this case there are reliable sources and if there are not, I would like to understand exactly what is required by Wikipedia. User:Mathsci and User:Fowler&fowler have so far prevented the possibility of an honest discussion on this issue and I would like to follow that through to the end. I dont think I violate any wikipedia policies in the initiation of this discussion. There are several other articles I can help you improve; but please allow me to choose in what order I do so.

I consider this discussion closed unless you wish to respond to my request for information on how I should take remedial measures against the evidently egregious actions of User:Fowler&fowler and User:Mathsci. thanks. - Perusnarpk (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Away until August 10th"

Please remove this if it is no longer true. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do Mathsci! For someone who claims that s/he was an invited speaker at the Connes fest, you seem to have a remarkable lot of time on your hands! Moreover, you seem rather adept at thinking of conspiracies. I'll answer you once here and then not again:

I am traveling till August 10 and while I may have intermittent internet access, I may not. So, the message stays.
Its very easy to learn about Wikipedia policies for dispute resolution. A quick google search and half an hour of browsing is enough to learn about RfC's, the BLP noticeboard, the RS noticeboard etc.
Why do you persist in your sockpuppet allegations, when they are obviously untrue. Surely, by looking at my edits outside this topic and Bharatveer's edits you can easily conclude I am neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet.

You amuse me but this discussion is closed. I may remove further comments from you on my talk page. Perusnarpk (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these personal attacks. I also spoke at an ICM and two ICMPs. If you continue these personal attacks, you will probably be reported on WP:AN/I and then probably indefinitely blocked. Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your edits outside "this topic" are uniformly poor and unencyclopedic, since you ask for my opinion. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppetry

Per the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk, there is a strong appearance of meat puppetry between yourself and Abhimars (talk · contribs). For the purposes of enforcing Wikipedia policies and determining consensus, both accounts will be treated as if they are one. Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, I must conclude that you are biased. I have *never* edited the Michael Atiyah page. Please tell me what policy I violated on the talk page. If you look over my contributions, you will see that I kept reiterating that I needed a confirmation on whether a petition signed by eminent academics was a RS. Please also check the RS notice board to see when I started receiving answers on that. Also, please notice that I have edited half a dozen pages on wikipedia and not one of them is the Michael Atiyah page. Moreover, since you seem to apply BLP so strictly to Atiyah, I dont understand the double standards in the case of Raju. Why have you deleted the RFC against F&F? Moreover, run a IP check on my current address and check if Abhimars is in the same geographic location. As far as I can see, this is clear bias.

Your account has been indefinitely blocked for meat puppetry and disruption by another administrator. You may request an unblock review if you wish. I fully endorse this block and request that any reviewing administrator read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep bringing up Fowler&fowler? He has nothing to do with your block. You were blocked for the single-purposed nature of your account to petition for the addition of BLP-sensitive and libelous material to Michael Atiyah. The RfC on Fowler was deleted as there were not enough legitimate (we don't count SPAs) users who certified the dispute. I have now removed all bits of contentious material about C. K. Raju posted by Fowler on RSN and Talk:Michael Atiyah. Also, an IP check was conducted and Alison determined that you and Abhimars were in the same city! Read the CheckUser case above. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Block

Fact 1: The checkuser above has been done sloppily. As mentioned above, I have been traveling. I logged in from City 1 on and before 29 July. I logged in from City 2 on 30 and 31 July. I logged in from City 3 on 1 August. I am logging in from City 4 today (August 7). Which city is being referred to above? I'm sure it should be easy to check, from Abhimar's history, that s/he has not been following the same crazy itinerary as me.

Fact 2: I never edited the Michael Atiyah page, although I did edit half a dozen other wikipedia pages. Check here

Fact 3: After 27 July, I made 36 edits on Wikipedia. These comprise:

9 edits -- physics related
16 edits -- attempting to obtain disciplinary action against User:Mathsci and User:Fowler&fowler
1 edit on the RS noticeboard here
zero edits on the talk page on Atiyah.

Evidently, the majority of my attention was devoted to making physics related edits to wikipedia and obtaining action against Mathsci and F&f for their outrageous behaviour.

Fact 4: I have never met or corresponded with Abhimars. I think even a cursory reading of our respective posts should suffice to convince a neutral observer of our differing styles and perspectives. The only commonality we have is that we were outraged at the tone of the discussion being carried out by F&f and Mathsci and decided to jump in and contribute.

Conclusion

The evidence for meatpuppetry is weak because (a) the checkuser was done sloppily (see above) (b) Most of my recent edits on wikipedia did not concern Atiyah at all and were concerned with physics and obtaining action against F&f and Mathsci (c) the fact that both abhimars and I were concerned at the outrageous ad hominem attacks carried out on Raju during the debate does not demonstrate meatpuppetry.
The main effect of blocking this account and declaring Abhimars and me to be meatpuppets was to stop the RfC against F&f. I conclude that this was User:Jehochman's primary motivation. This constitutes tactit support for the slanderous statements made by F&f. In addition, I note that when User:Mathsci used the ethnic slur `Indian extremist' against me, User:Jehochman attempted to place a `resolved' tag on the wikiquette alert before even a single neutral editor had a chance to respond. See here.
The case for indefinitely blocking me seems quite poor. I request a neutral administrator to view the evidence here and unblock me.

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).

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

Request reason:

see section Review of Block on my talk page

Decline reason:

As you have taken the time to post in an orderly manner, I will reply in kind. Per the blocking admin, this block was not based on checkuser evidence, but rather behavior patterns that include the edits of this and other accounts; meatpuppets may be considered as one individual for the purpose of reviewing policy violations, which was done in this circumstance. I note, too, that other editors editing on your behalf, to further your preferred edits, would not be revealed in a list of your contributions - thus, the appeal of the technique. Second, a review of your block involves only your actions, or those of accounts linked to yours as sock/meatpuppets, etc. The actions of other editors are not germaine to your block. Third, while a checkuser has expressed reservations about the checkuser data, This block is primarily for other factors, as noted. I very specifically do not believe an indefinite block was in order for these offenses, but I do not see cause at this time to unblock your account. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:14, 8 August 2008 (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.

Since this block stems from checkuser evidence, I've asked Alison (talk · contribs) to comment. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser evidence in this case is not very strong and indeed, I don't consider it worthy of a block. On review, I had stated that they had a shared organizational IP. This is, in fact, incorrect and I was wrong there, as Thatcher subsequently pointed out. I cannot comment on the accusations of meatpuppetry and BLP violations as I'm not as au fait with the case as some folks but a cursory glance at the whole matter tends to indicate that there's some truth to this. However, checkuser cannot do a whole lot to verify meatpuppetry as it's primarily behavioural and related to POV - Alison ^❤ 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err no, this block is not based on the Checkuser request (note that the block was conducted while there were two differing opinions over the CheckUser results). It's based on the fact that this user created an account with the sole purpose of pushing a point of view that violated WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. There's also clear meatpuppetry here; four new Indian SPAs just happened to pop up on the same Wikipedia article talk pages to argue for the inclusion of the Raju-Atiyah case in the article. Numerous people (F+F, Mathsci, me, Tiptoety, Jehochman, etc.) agree with this conclusion. This is why you are blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to the blocking admin on the duration, though I would not have blinked at something less than indef. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Block 2

Shifting Goalposts Nishkid said above that a checkuser determined that Abhimars and I were in the same city. I pointed out that I had been traveling extensively and asked him which city he was referring to (for the record, I am back in city 1 after traveling though four other cities). I wish to point out that this question has not been answered. The argument being given is that the block was not contingent on the checkuser. This is belied by the statements of Jehochman and Nishkid above where they explicitly cited the checkuser.

Violation of WP policies? I wish to reiterate that I never edited the Michael Atiyah page. My participation was limited to the discussion on whether an NPOV line(or lines) regarding a charge of academic misconduct, supported by a premier scientific ethics society in India, a letter to the editor of the American Mathematical Society and a petition signed by a cross section of the cream of Indian academia could be inserted into the Atiyah article. The debate was whether there are sufficient secondary sources to warrant the introduction of this line. A review of my contributions will show that they were all directed towards answering this question.

Nishkid seems to suggest that even the discussion of this issue (whether there are reliable secondary sources) violates WP guidelines? If there is a binding ArbCom resolution on this issue that I have violated by raising this discussion, please produce that here.

In the absence of anything of this kind, it seems to me that Nishkid viewed this discussion, decided which side he was on and promptly blocked the two users on the other side: User:Bharatveer and me. This, it seems, is a violation of administrative privileges and a bypassing of the WP dispute resolution methods.

Lack of Uniform Standards: The issue of other editors is important, because it serves to demonstrate if the administrators concerned acted in good faith or whether they were biased. In this context, I wish to point out that unlike anything I did, User:Fowler&fowler repeatedly made libelous statements in this discussion (see above, on my talk page). The fact that Nishkid and Jehochman have failed to apply the policies of WP:LIBEL, and WP:BLP to this, indicates bias to me.

The other possibility is that WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL policies allow British/American users to foul mouth living Indian scientists but prevent Indian users from initiating a discussion of secondary sources pertaining to British scientists.

Please clarify.

SPA? As far as I understand, SPA is not an official WP designation. Nishkid above repeatedly uses this as a justification for my block and even stated: "we don't count SPAs") while justifying deleting the RfC against User:Fowler&fowler. I would like a clarification on this.

Moving on, it should be clear from my contributions that my only page edits are on highly specialized topics, unrelated to this issue. It is perfectly natural for a new editor to join in on an issue s/he is interested in and then broaden to other issues. This is exactly what I did.

Note Added: I would strongly recommend asking a professional physicist to look over my physics related contributions on wikipedia. I am quite sure that the concerned administrators, Nishkid and Jehochman, cannot even understand let alone evaluate these edits.

Perusnarpk (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please view section Review of Block 2 on my talk page

Decline reason:

I have reviewed this page and taken a look at the Atiyah controversy and the RfC against Fowler&fowler. What I have read there leads me to agree with User:Tiptoety's original block reason: Meatpuppetry, arguing to add BLP-sensitive/libelous material to Michael Atiyah, disruption. Since I don't perceive that the block is erroneous, and I see no admission by the person blocked that he himself made the slightest error, I am declining this unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2008 (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 did not block you. As for the RfC, Jehochman deleted it because he didn't count RfCs. I was just detailing his actions. I blocked Bharatveer because he was using a closed proxy. That has nothing to do with Atiyah. Furthermore, your contributions to other physics articles were reverted by R.e.b. (talk · contribs), a well-established Wikipedia editor and mathematician. This speaks worlds about your own supposed physics knowledge. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: Thatcher told me that you and Abhimars were editing from the same geographic location a few days before Jehochman submitted his CheckUser request. I didn't block you two because the CU evidence was not sufficient enough to definitively suggest meatpuppetry. Tiptoety made no mention of the CheckUser result on your block log at all, either. Also, don't even bring nationality into question. F&f and I are Indian editors, so your claim of bias is invalid. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 1: I think the lack of attention to detail does you in, Nishkid. First, REB has left the majority of my physics edits untouched. Second, here is an example of a revert s/he conducted: I made this edit to the page on the RG group, with this talk message. REB has reverted to the previous version, which contains a manifestly incorrect statement, with no talk message. First, R.E.B is known to be quite annoyed with me and I would classify this as vindictive vandalism. Second, I dont care how established R.E.B. is on wikipedia. Real life extends beyond wikipedia, and this statement is wrong. I think even you might be able to discern this, if you took freshman physics this year. Look it over and, if not, put it to a physics editor, not a maths editor (Mathematicians are notorious for making elementary blunders in physics. For example, see the prefatory not here). Please do this for the sake of accuracy in the article, not for me!

Fact 2: The bias is manifest. F&f's abuses are copied above. You refused to take any action against him/her. Bharatveer was blocked on a technicality. I notice you have been forced to unblock him/her.

Fact 3: I did not raise nationality. Its you who decided to call us `Indian' editors first. Also, thanks for telling me that F&f is Indian. Isn't this a violation of strict wikipedia norms about not revealing personal information about other editors?

Fact 4: Your statement "As for the RfC, Jehochman deleted it because he didn't count RfCs", does not make sense to me. Please be a bit more coherent. Perusnarpk (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added: The error that R.e.b. re-introduced was a little too glaring. So, I've removed it again and added an elaborated version of my last edit here with this talk comment. Please discuss this on the talk page with other physics editors before reverting. cheers, Perusnarpk (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 1: I admit that I didn't taken physics in college yet, so I probably won't be familiar with the subject matter. As for R.e.b., I don't dispute his knowledge of physics and math topics.

Fact 2: Bharatveer's block was a technicality? He was editing under a closed proxy. It's quite common to block open proxy IPs and users who edit under proxies. I only unblocked because he (much to my annoyance) failed to provide an explanation as to why he was editing under a closed proxy. I could have kept him indefinitely blocked, but from his reaction, it appeared that he was genuine unaware of his IP configuration. That's the only reason why I unblocked him.

Fact 3: And that is exactly what you are. What's the problem there? You were the one who insinuated that there was some American/Brit vs. Indian bias here. Furthermore, given F&f's topics of interest, I only assumed he was Indian. It's quite possible that he's not. I don't talk to him off-wiki, so I wouldn't know.

Fact 4: Jehochman deleted it because he didn't count the SPAs as certifiers of the dispute. I mentioned this above already: "The RfC on Fowler was deleted as there were not enough legitimate (we don't count SPAs) users who certified the dispute." Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]