User talk:Relata refero/Archive 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

British Raj

You are still trying to force your way through. Your intension is to unethically force a block and not in tune with opinions expressed by other users - a clear case of vandalism. PLEASE note the opinion of other users on the talk page who have pointed out the same biases that I have. Desione (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your are indulging in WP:Vandalism by not paying any attention to multiple users who have pointed out bias in the British Raj section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. warning

   Please do not Vandalize the British Raj article. bias in the article has been clearly pointed out by me and several other users.

Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk

The above article was deleted because it contained almost no content. Please consider creating a full-length article on this topic (properly sourced), as the deleted item was deemed too short to qualify even as a stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that's better now! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely well-written; congratulations! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Barlow

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Barlow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India

Hi. Can you please look into the article Poverty in India. The situation is deteriorating there. The user:Nikkul and User:Bakasuprman are involved in ANI and making wild accusations on me. They seems to hellbent in removing the begger image. But as I have explained, this image is true representative of poverty than the anonymous image of farmer's houses. Could you please look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Four color theorem

I put the United States back on the list of countries with exclaves, while leaving Russia in there (since it's also a good example). The exclaves for the US are Alaska and Hawaii. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Exclaves have to be surrounded by alien territory, which is why I didn't think of Hawaii. Of course, Alaska is as correct as Kaliningrad is, though I suspect neither is technically correct. Relata refero (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONCISE

No, I didn't, sorry. I actually wasn't aware that it existed. It does sound like an interesting idea. I was just trying to say, in a colourful way, that Wikipedia editors should be concerned about keeping the articles concise, like I think encyclopedia articles should be. I'd never heard of the actual WP:CONCISE and I didn't think such a thing existed. Obviously they are concerned about a different sort of concision. Kind of funny. Sorry about the confusion though. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Well what I was trying to say is it isn't just in the policies. We have to be able to step back and see an encyclopedia article when it is all done. Hmm, I wonder if there is a WP:GESTALT? =) --JGGardiner (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India

A voting is going on in the talk page on inclusion of image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is in a smear campaign aganist me in multiple talk pages. Informed partisan editors like Hkelkar socks Gahnadar galpa about this image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

It means something. Anyway, the Yamashita's gold dispute (etc) is not the only reason I'm wikibreaking: I really do have pressing real life matters to attend to, as well as burgeoning wikipediholism :-) and have blocked myself from editing until the end of March. Grant (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia, which is a critical work, and not a blanket endorsement of conspiracies, states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Burnett goes on to question other findings by the Seagraves, such as the involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely out of context comment

(With vague reference to WP:BLPN) You have the patience of a saint. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re: qn

hi. sorry for not responding to your query. thanks a lot for the offer, but i think the relevant ones have been tagged now. --Soman (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user

You mentioned on BLP that IP: 121.220.6.59 would be blocked per an IRC convo for 3RR violation. But I don't see anything in his block log. And he's now created an account at User talk:100%freehuman that should be blocked with the IP per whatever arrangement you made on IRC. MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiggy Legge-Bourke

Thanks for your edit - you're quite right, of course. Xn4 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange

Have you see Special:Contributions/Nikhilsohail. Possible sock. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghanadar galpa. Can you please help there. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for becoming involved on the Animal testing talk page, I think this article will benefit a great deal from a wider range of views, and more input from the community in discussions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Treaty of Tripoli

I have responded to your concern on the Treaty of Tripoli talk page. I have listed four other works that directly verify the one in question. Two of those four cannot be questioned over legitimacy, since their publishers are highly respected and would not product "crack pot" theories. To make it easier, here are links to their pages on Amazon, so you can have a sense of the authors and their background: [1] and [2] . As you can see, they have been rated by the New York Times, been praised by many critics, and are from distinguished authors that have published many books. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Witzel/Frawley

No doubt if you did find a way to write a concise and accurate summary, someone would claim it was a BLP violation and revert you. Not really worth the trouble, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting your thoughts

To avoid further conflict, I'd like to ask your opinion. Where do you believe I should post the second-hand complaint about ScienceApologist? Would it be more appropriate to add it to the arb request, or to the Homeopathy probation subpages, or should I do both? I'm leaning towards taking Jossi's advice and posting it to the probation subpages, particularly considering that the arbs seem disinclined to take the case (and at least one arb (Newyorkbrad) has openly expressed that the probation should be allowed to play out before the committee takes on the situation). I'd appreciate your feedback on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are aware, I also asked the advice of SirFozzie. The conclusion reached was that I should post the complaint at the probation subpage and leave a short comment with a link to the complaint at the RFAR. Does that seem like a reasonable solution to you? Vassyana (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No fair posting to my talk page at the same time I'm posting to yours. :-P Thanks for your advice! Vassyana (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heterodox

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your thinking to me. I'm about to leave on a visit and won't be back till Tuesday evening at the earliest, and will reply to you then. Just to say though that I'm interested in various economic theories that are considered heterodox, e.g. regulation theory. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferguson

I was waiting for a response on the article Talk: page. Since you're willing to take on the job of ensuring BLP, I'll unprotect it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Lade, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

.mil refs

You mentioned a couple times that .mil, or military pub'd, refs were inadmissable. Is there an article to support that assertation? Otherwise, almost all of our WP:Military History articles will be in trouble, as most rely on DoD sourcing at some level or another. But I don't want to keep using them if I oughtn't. Thanks. --BizMgr (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clariying. --BizMgr (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Do you believe as Guy does that I am Anthony Zufuto? Anthon01 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this hold any weight.[3] As you know he was imtimately involved with the case. Anthon01 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Thank you very much for your comments. I think this is the first time I get an appreciation since I’d been editing and doing all these general cleanups. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Trouble on the Sonia Gandhi page

Your recent edits to the Sonia Gandhi page have been entirely reverted by User:Inder315. I have been in a long fight with him over that content but he keeps inserting it back. He has also been blocked before for operating three other sockpuppet accounts on that page, but obviously hasn't learnt his lesson. What to do? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

K. V. Simon

Hi, Relata refero ,

This is regarding your recent edits of K. V. Simon :- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._V._Simon&curid=1678104&diff=189506562&oldid=189457944

I dont understand why you removed the reference link rm WP:SPS per WP:BLP .

requesting to kindly do sufficent research while making such alteratios.

WP:BLP means Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Please note that K. V. Simon died on 1944 !!!

What were youtrying to say by WP:SPS ?? I only tried an article about the person as reference from a page on internet. Requesting to kindly revert your action !

Secondly regarding you edit of Abraham Malpan http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Malpan&diff=189310928&oldid=188351708] .

Obviously you have note read the refernces for the content verification

Citations ^ http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm " Palakkunnathu Abraham MalpanRecognized as the catalyst behind the Reformation, Abraham Malpan was born in 1796 (Malayalam Era 971) in Palakunnathu family which is believed to be a branch of the renowned Pakalomattam family. " ^ N.M.Mathew, (2007), History of the Malankara Marthoma Church, Vol II (Malayalam) page 88. ^ Zac Varghese & Mathew A.Kallumpram. (2003). Glimpses of Mar Thoma Church History. Page28-33. ^ Mar Thoma Sabha Directory. (1999). Page 82-89. ^ Chacko, T.C., (2000). Concise History of Malankara Marthoma Chuch. E.J. Institute ^ The Most Rev. Dr. Juhanon Marthoma. (1993). Christianity in India and a brief History of The Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Page 43.

[edit] References English:

Agur, C.M. (1903). Church History of Travancore. Asian Education Services. Juhanon Marthoma Metropolitan, The Most Rev. Dr. (1993). Christianity in India and a Brief History of the Marthoma Syrian Church. Pub: K.M. Cherian. Mathew, N.M. (2003) History of Palakunnathu Family. Zac Varghese Dr. & Mathew A. Kallumpram. (2003). Glimpses of Mar Thoma Church History. London, England.ISBN: 8190085441 http://www.kuwaitmarthoma.com/links/pam.pdf Malayalam:

T.C. Chacko, (2000) Concise history of Malankara Marthoma Suyani Sabha, E.J. Institute, Tiruvalla. K.N. Daniel,(1952). Udayamperoor Sunnahadosinte Canonukal (Canons of the Synod of Diamper), C.L.S., Tiruvalla. Eapen, Prof. K.V. (2001) History of Malankara Marthoma Suryani Sabha. Mathew, N.M. (2006) History of Malankara Marthoma Church.Volume I (2006), Volume II (2007), Volume III (to be published in 2008), E.J. Institute, Tiruvalla. http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm

Thanks

Tinucherian (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin

I saw your reply at the above. Using tabbed browsing I got confused between your input at various debates, and your history count which seemed to show registration of the account on Jan 28th (it was actually another user entirely of course). Doh! How silly do I feel! So, just to reiterate - apologies for my commentary against you at that RfA and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious violence in India

Hi Relata refero, I will be away from the internet for some days, I want to bring some fact in your notice.

• The article Religious violence in India has a "History" section depicitng religious violence in India from historical time. The section is divided into three paragraphs, one is for ancient and medieval period, second paragraph is for pre-independence events in modern India, and the third paragraph is for post-Independence history.
• The first paragraph describe religious violence in ancient India by Pusyamitra Sunga, his hostile attitude towards Buddhism, advent of Islam in the subcontinent, advent of Christianity, events like Goa Inquisition.
• The second paragraph mainly focuses on Direct Action Day and mentions events like Moplah Rebellion.
• The third paragraph describes the history of religious violence in India after Independence. It mentions rise of Islamic terrorism, religion based politics, effect of Hindutva activists, violence against minority communities by Hindutva activists. The present structure of the paragrapgh is

“ Although constitutionally India is a secular state,[9] large-scale violence have periodically occurred in India since independence sparked by underlying tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities. In recent decades, communal tensions and religion-based politics have become more prominent,[10] coinciding with a rise in Islamic terrorism. Throughout the history of post-Independence India, both Muslim and Christian communities have faced repeated attacks from Hindu activists.[11] As the Hindutva ideology has grown more powerful over the years, many Hindutva activists have partaken in riots against minority communities.[12] These actions have served to polarise minority communities.[12] Many proponents of the Hindutva ideology portray violence against Muslims and Christians as a form of "self-defense"[12] against "invaders". Over the last decade, religious violence in India has increasing become organized pogroms to eliminate minority communities.[12] Some state governments in India have been accused of not effectively prosecuting those who attack religious minorities.[2] ”

I fear some POV edits there may change the shape of this paragraph, especially those mentioning violence by Hindutva activists. Some are trying to add Christian terrorism there, but Chrisitan terrorism is mainly limited to North-East India, and primarily carried out by NLFT. And the terrorism by NLFT is generally regarded as secessionist (rather than pure Christian terrorism), there is a separate paragrapph of this in the article. Mentioning Christian terrrorism in the history section will not be appropriate, because of its limited impact, ethnic source of violence, and limited operation only in North-East India. While incidents of Islamic terrorism occured in all over India. This paragraph depicts the general situation all over India, analyses the systematic violence against minority communities in post-Independence history.

• There is a separate section in the article titled "Lesser incidents" which depicts incidents of religious violence in minor scale, not notable for having separate section of its own. It includes incidents like Marad Massacre. This section should not be filled with all small incidents of violence all over India. I fear some POV-pushing may add trivial incidents of violence in that section.

I will be away from the internet for some days. So I am bringing the article to your attention. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of Non-notable again

A request, please look at this and leave your comments. Do we really need to keep all these stuffs? --Avinesh Jose  T  11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic development corporation

Hi. You've prodded this article but I can't find your reasoning anywhere. It would be great if you could either replace the current tag with one that includes your concern or explain it on the talk page. Natalie (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Coldfusion223

Is this guy a banned user? Corvus cornix_talk 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

re:3rr

a) I have not made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours b) The "reverts" arent reverts since the concerns have been addressed Bakaman 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your mathematics is incorrect, I have made 1 revert in the past hour, compared to your three. If you are trying to get me blocked, it will display that you are not editing the page for constructive reasons. The concerns you brought up on the talk page were addressed, and I have obviously improved the quality of the page in the last day.Bakaman 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. You've misrepresented sources, and removed text four times, and made no effort to appreciate concerns aired on the talkpage. I'm afraid that this will go to AN3 unless you demonstrate a concern for improving your behaviour by re-inserting the removed text. Relata refero (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, please engage in civil discussion. Making snide comments against another editor is unacceptable, and a continuation of such behavior will result in a block. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Have you seen the misrepresentation from this editor today? Do try and do a bit of research first, and don't threaten established editors with random blocks, especially not when they're dealing with someone who's a known problem and has a block log as long as my arm. Relata refero (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the other editor is doing. You're responsible for remaining civil in discussion. Comments like "And your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write" or patronizing remarks like "Do you know what a bracket means?" are unacceptable. This is your warning. Also, I am very well aware of Bakasupraman's issues and I have plenty of experience with this user. I will deal with him separately. In the meantime, you continue to engage in civil discussion on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He was claiming that an article that said "neglect" could be used as a source for a statement that said "discrimination". There were several other such instances of misrepresentation in the past hour alone, during which, among other things, he accused me of making a covert attack on his religion. When I pointed out that neglect should not be paraphrased as 'discrimination', he said they had the same connotation. And you are trying to say that "your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write" is unacceptable? What is unacceptable about it? Is he not apparently unable to comprehend that the two words are not interchangeable? ("Exploitation, Neglect, etc. are all terms with a negative connotation. Pettifoggery isnt going to change the fact that a spade is a spade") Is that not likely to negatively impact any article he writes?

And where do you get off telling me how to handle him, or making strange 'warnings'? If you can handle him better, why are you not trying to fix these articles that POV-pushers muck up on a regular basis? An abdication of responsibility that's only made worse by your coming and telling me that you think I am being uncivil when I have made the utmost effort over months to encourage this editor to avoid making personal attacks. I am this close to taking this to AN/I as an unconscionable abuse of admin power. Relata refero (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, but from your comment, it seems you took Baka's "misrepresentation" on this particular article, and attacked his overall encyclopedia contributions. I gave you a warning to drop any snide comments directed toward Bakasupraman. Stick to the subject, and you'll be fine. I don't see why you're flipping out over a warning. If a civil user felt the warning was improper, he or she would contact the user who issued that warning and nicely state that the warning is possibly inappropriate. Instead, you're claiming I have abused my admin power by giving you a civility warning. There is no admin abuse in that, and I don't care if you take this to AN/I. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am flipping out, as you put it, because you have just effectively undermined any future efforts I may make to urge civility on someone who has the utmost trouble with it. And I am flipping out because I have no idea how to interpret a "warning" made obviously with no idea of how and what my own contributions here have been. Whatever. I'm happy to apologise if I was uncivil to you, and I actually deeply regret it if I was. However, I must tell you that if you step into the middle of a conversation in which established user X is pleading with problem user Y to revert themselves after breaking 3RR to "warn" X for incivility, X, regardless of how much they may value civility, is likely to take it badly.

Admin abuse lies in not making an effort to discover what's going on, and to throw your weight around with warnings in that vacuum. Please don't do it again. I don't make complaints easily, and so I won't in this case, but I strongly suggest you revisit your methodology here. Relata refero (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to judge. I had already reviewed the article and questioned Bakasupraman off-Wiki about his actions (he brought my attention to the matter) before I left you a warning on your talk page. I told him that he made 4 partial reverts (removing "as of 1968"), which could have resulted in a 3RR block. Since the discussion was still ongoing, I felt a block was not appropriate. Granted, I was a bit confused by the discussion on the talk page, given my unfamiliarity with the subject, but I will take another look at it again. I understand your predicament, but you must always remain calm in discussion.

Also, I must disagree with your interpretation of admin abuse. Admin abuse is called into question when the administrator has actually abused the tools (block, protect, delete, etc.). Clearly, that isn't the case here. The warning I gave could just as easily have been issued by a non-administrator. I left the warning in good faith, so I wasn't "abusing" anything. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)You know, I'm not sure that doesn't make it worse. I'm quite calm now, so I can tell you this: you gave me a civility warning without investigating who you were giving it to. Did you pause to ask me? You spoke to Bakasuprman about it - off-wiki - but I was not afforded that courtesy. (INcidentally, he still claims he didn't violate 3RR, and has shown no inclination as of the last time I checked to actually revert the appropriate line.)

Not only was I not afforded the same courtesy as a problem editor, but you didn't take a moment to look through my contribs. In the past three days I've had a discussion with Guy urging him to be more civil, stepped in to reprimand an IP for an antisemitic attack, and admonished an admin for using the word 'troll' at an RfA. I make a point of civility, and believe it underpins our enterprise. Which is something that you could have discovered first; or asked me before a "warning".

Allow me to apologise again if I was initially sharp. Relata refero (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

About abuse: I have heard that before, and I understand the point. However, a block warning from an administrator carries more weight, as they are in a position to act on it more directly. Given that, you should be careful about using it.

I do not call into question your good faith. Relata refero (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should a history of good behavior be considered when issuing a block? Yes - the block duration can be altered depending on the user's history. Should the same be applied for a warning? I don't think so - people need reminders of policies from time to time.

Was I supposed to ask you why you made those comments? I couldn't care less for an explanation. The fact of the matter is, you made uncivil comments, and as an outside observer, I gave you a warning. And again, you are too quick to judge. Bakasupraman also brought the editing dispute at Hindu Forum of Britain to my attention a week ago. I investigated, looked into the dispute, had a quick look through your contributions and made a quick comment on the talk page. If you could explain to me why "as of 1968" is still needed when a 1994 book reference was used, I would appreciate it. I didn't check to see the latest discussion (which may have answered this question). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think that you are incorrect about your history-warning concept. Note that it neverthless undermines my ability to insist on civility in future. That being said, I accept it as a reason to not have had a look at my history. In the same spirit - of a reminder to someone whose good faith is not in question - I trust you will consider this a reminder that occasionally that attitude can lead to this type of unpleasantness. Admin actions, or warnings given with the weight of threatened admin action, are always better done with full information.

As for "as of 1968", it is nevertheless required, as the 1994 citation quotes a 1968 study. It isnt an independent source. Note that the point that he refused to admit a violation stands; in this too, I'm afraid I mildly disagree with your judgment.

And finally, you haven't yet responded to my original post. Is "your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write" incivil or, in this case, a simple statement of fact? The only alternative is that he chooses to not comprehend it; if I were to assume that instead, I violate a core policy. Under such circumstances, to continue to call a simple statement of verifiable truth incivility is problematic. You weren't just an outside observer: you were a mistaken outside observer, and you didn't choose to question yourself, much less me.

I have to go offline for a bit now, but if you have any further concerns I will respond tomorrow. Relata refero (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was telling you not to do. I would appreciate it if you would stop making uncorroborated statements about my actions when you don't even know what I did (I'm not shielding anyone, I did not mismanage anyone, and I investigated this matter). From where I stand, it looks like you just used the AN/I topic to continue with the negative commentary on Bakasupraman. Sure, he has many issues with civility and edit warring, but one of the main reasons why he's still here is because he's made many beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Again, I advise you to drop the negative and uncivil comments regarding Bakasupraman. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your last comment on my talk page, I found "your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write" incivil. I have been through Bakasupraman's editing history. I have closely monitored his edits since Hkelkar 2, early last year. He has many problematic issues, and I believe he lucked out with the last ArbCom case. However, he does make a number of accurate, neutral contributions to the encyclopedia that you are not looking into. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Crushing minority? Do explain how he has managed to slip through the cracks of ArbCom, while the same editors who were against him received disciplinary action. It's clear that there are people who think that he is overall beneficial to this encyclopedia. Anyway, I could care less about this matter, so I'm dropping it. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Against him?" What kind of battles are you fighting? The last ArbCom had a proposed remedy from Guy. Is that an editor against him? Moreschi? Are these the people you mean?

And he has slipped through the cracks each time it appears because ArbCom is terrified of expanding the scope of a case. And because of this unconscionable attitude. If you were defending him and stepping in on the vast stretches of articles he ruins, that's one thing. But you aren't even doing that. Relata refero (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your rationale for the comment insufficient. What did you think you would achieve by telling Bakasupraman that he makes inaccurate edits to every article he works on? I can only assume that you were trying to provoke him. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please! That's a terrible assumption. I said "your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write". Which is true! Each time that a careful paraphrase is necessary, this chap might well completely change the meaning - especially since he is unwilling to have it pointed out! How is this a good portent for anything he writes? And how is that the same as "every article is inaccurate"? Relata refero (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Against him" refers to the editors who edit warred with him. They were usually the same lot of editors. Also, Dbachmann was the only case with case scope issues. Hkelkar 2 was all about RA's block of Bakasupraman. Baka could have easily been examined and been subject to remedies. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the talkpage of that ArbCom. They hoped for another focusing specifically on editing abuse. Relata refero (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The main issue on that article was that he was inaccurately paraphrasing something. It's fairly obvious that you are saying that judging from Baka's edits to this particular article, his other edits to other articles might just as well be inaccurate. This is no stretch of the imagination. I am an outsider in the matter, and that's how I understood it just as how it was worded. And talk page of which ArbCom case? Dbachmann? I already acknowledged that Baka lucked out on the Dbachmann case because of concerns over the case scope. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)No, it was that he has a pattern of misrepresenting and misinterpreting sources, combined with carelessness. It extends across every article I have ever seen him on. That does mean that all the other articles might also be problematic. (It doesn't mean every edit is inaccurate.) And how can you disagree with that conclusion? And I'm talking of HK2. Even HK1, if a mysterious bunch of users who are never around to restrain him when he's a problem seem to have turned up to vouch for him. Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a stretch you're making. How many articles have you seen Bakasupraman edit, and can you show where he's purported inaccuracies? And if he really was making all these inaccurate edits, he would have been indefblocked or banned already without ArbCom involvement. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? If I had the time or patience for that, I would have taken it to ArbCom as they have suggested.

And I'd like to point out what happened the last time someone tried to indefblock him. And I notice that something similar seems to happen each time his editing privileges are threatened. Relata refero (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider that it was Rama's Arrow of all people who made the indefblock? RA sometimes edit warred of Bakasuprman, and then he decided to indefblock him because he didn't want to bother with Baka's antics. Also, RA made up his own e-mail and chat evidence (as demonstrated by Blnguyen's comments on the matter). I'm going to bed, but I will be back later to discuss, if need be. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond then. Relata refero (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

Hi there. I've queried something you said in an ANI thread. My concerns can be seen here (search for your name). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Something fishy by an admin

Oh yeah, BTW, the admin Nishkid64 who blocked me stated that I did not engage in dialog on the page I was reverting. However, I did here. But wait a minute, something odd has occurred. That edit does not show in the history section [here. Something fishy is going on. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay tuned for dispute resolution

The Ward Churchill misconduct issue debate goes back a long long time. It was once nominated for speedy deletion as a coatrack and an attack article. By A former admin named Nandesuka. Who has recently started editing that article again. I intend to see to it that that article is once again brought to the attention of the Wiki community. This time the fact that Verklempt allows his hatred of Ward Churchill to stand in the Way of adhering to Wiki blp will likely become an issue unto itself. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up (Sporadicals, SPAs, Sleeper Socks)

Would you be interested in commenting on this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice about you

Someone has posted something about you, that maybe of interest: [4]

Bless sins (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahmins et al

I added something, but really couldn't focus down to constructive details, sorry. rudra (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could help, but the details are so far outside my experience or interest. As far as sourcing — IF the information is accurate, I would be inclined to leave the content and the questionable source. But that's a big If. And it's also my own bias to keep something if it's accurate but poorly sourced. It's not Wikipedia's policy. ~ priyanath talk 01:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting user-name you've chosen!

Hi there, Relata refero

That's a very interesting user-name you've chosen (="I tell as I was told", or "I report reports").

I was just wondering whether your choice of user-name is intended to indicate a supposed "neutral point of view" to your contributions?

If that's your intention, I feel it's only fair to point out that the existence of POVs you fail to address (or even ignore) would give the lie to any such apparent - or should I say "perceived" - claim to inherent neutrality.

But maybe I'm reading more into your choice of name than you intended? Either way, I'd be grateful if you could shed some light! Regards, Revera (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Brahmin reference

I read your note on RSN with great interest and the issue you raise is a complicated one. As far as I see, the main problem is that we lack information about the publisher and author of the reference, which prevents us from judging its credibility. A strict reading of WP:V dictates that we remove the citation and all dependent material, but I cannot (yet) convince myself that such a step will actually improve the encyclopedia, especially considering that:

• Vinay Jha (despite all his faults) is not known to "manufacture" sources,
• Though obscurity reflects poorly on the credibility of a source, this is not necessarily true in this case given the language, and the narrow focus and appeal of the book's subject
• The cited information seems reasonable and an improvement on the previous wikipedia content ... though I must admit I am quite ignorant of the topic.

In summary: I am conflicted on how to resolve this issue and don't have any positive suggestion to make at the moment (that is the reason I am posting this message on your talk page instead of on RSN). In the meantime I will search my library databases to find bibliographical information on the book or its author/publisher and will drop you a note if I find anything. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

I will raise a complaint against you if you continue to make edits about which you very clearly have no proper or acceptable knowledge and for which you have no source materials. The simple fact of the matter is that the House of Lords was established and provided for the hereditary peerage. You may not like it but that is the historical fact of the matter. He never edited Right Now! but was a patron. it has an ISSN number so why don;t you get a copy before saying things which are untrue. Stick to things you know something about. Chelsea Tory (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Check Your Work on the Treaty of Tripoli

I am requesting that when you make changes to my work, that you proof read your edits.

Example 1: You did not like my original sentences, which read, "Adams asked how that could be, inasmuch as neither side had done anything to harm or provoke the other to war. Abdrahaman insisted that, nevertheless, war existed between them, as the Barbary nations were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean, and without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and America." Please re-consider the change you made, which reads, "The envoy informed Adams that a state of war existed between the U.S. and the Barbary nations, and offered to arrange for a treaty of peace Abdrahaman offered to arrange such a treaty."

Example 2: My original statement was, "the envoy demanded 30,000 guineas for "his employers" and another 3,000 pounds sterling as payment for his services, a total worth nearly $1 million." You changed this to, "the envoy informed them that any peace would involve the payment of 33,000 guineas," but you also added a link to the word "guineas," connecting it to the Wiki article about the African nation of the Republic of Guinea. However, the Republic of Guinea has nothing to do with the old British monetary unit. Even if they did, the Wikipedia article says absolutely nothing about it, and so the link is only confusing. Actually, the British guinea is named after the Guinea coast, a region that does not coincide with the Republic of Guinea (though they are in nearly the same region of Africa). You may find a map informative: Guinea Coast, 500–1000 a.d.. As you may see, the Guinea coast covers a much greater area than the entire nation of the Republic of Guinea.

Example 3: You dispute my statement, which read, "The Pasha of Tripoli lowered the price of peace to $52,000, jewels and assorted naval supplies."A Template for Taming Iran." Time. However, the Treaty did not last beyond its fourth year, when the pasha demanded a sharp increase in payment..." and your statement to me was, "please verify this theory with a quote from an RS." I believe that "Time" magazine is a respected source, and changing the terms from $52k to "an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000" represents a sharp increase. However, somewhere in the last few weeks, I have read from another source wording that specifically states that the Treaty was broken when Jefferson refused to pay the sharp increase demanded by the Pasha of Tripoli; it may take me a while to find it, again, but I probably can, in the event that my math does not convince you on its own. Pooua (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

You might want to take a look at this discussion on WP:ANI, since it is about you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Holodomor

I know that the article's talk page is lengthy, put please take time to read it to see what to expect if you are going to edit this article. Please also beware of the ruthlessness you may encounter. Another editor (Gatoglass) was frivolously pulled to WP:AE for his honest objections. --Irpen 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I must say I'm startled. I thought the article was barely a month old! Was the content spun out of Holodomor? Relata refero (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was "written" anew. Also, check its AfD. --Irpen 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord.

I find myself in sympathy with the nominator. This is precisely the kind of article that needs attention from people who aren't involved in these battles day-to-day. Relata refero (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I am not very happy to see that my prediction is now fact. Sorry. --Irpen 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so friendly Tories

You may find Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman to be very interesting reading. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That was just the tip of the iceberg, I tried to keep it vaguely short so the checkuser didn't just refuse to even look at the evidence. Banhammers should dropping on certain parties soon as a result anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence

Given this, I additionally submit that all evidence or proposals that begin with the assumption that "nowhere has it been demonstrated these accounts have not injured the encyclopaedia" is flawed to start off with, and should be viewed with concern. seems to contain a stray extra negative based on the tone of the rest of your statement, are you sure this is what you meant to say? —Random832 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Board of Outer Darkness Where There is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

I love that description. Since, it seems that is how they view themselves also (from the very little bit of review I've done over there. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chevalier title

T U Kuruvilla holds Chevalier title, can we link it to Chivalry. I’m not sure about it. if so, it (chivalry) doesn’t say anything about the title. can we add something to it per 1, 2, 3. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}}

Santa Fe Folk Art Fair

Thank you so much for creating that link. I still am frustrated at trying to create a new article because the correct title of the event is Santa Fe Folk Art Festival. I have tried to edit the title to no avail. Can I prevail upon you to help me out. I am so frustrated. My boss wants this page up by Monday and I just am having a devil of a time getting off the dime! Thanks steve Folkartmarket (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice

[5] - my award for accurate edit summary of the week :-) Guy (Help!) 13:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Eagerbeaver434

Another Hkelkar sock. Special:Contributions/Eagerbeaver434. Opened case in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eagerbeaver434. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My feelings exactly

Ah, well. What amazes me most about Hkelkar is that he's supposed to be a physics student at the Texas Uni. Physics?? I thought they gave those types rationality tests first, no? Clearly not...best, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Probably something similar was afflicting our French nationalist pal who was bashing merrily away at Chopin a short while back. He couldn't evaluate sources either - Folantin eventually worked out he'd picked his ideas up from some French law lecturer who recently claimed that Chopin was, in fact, wholly French. Their educational system doesn't much favour original critical thinking either, from my experience, though at least the curriculum there is very broad. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your call on that

As a token of gratitude, the relata refero ref. to Herodotus runs in the original (eheu, no accents) as follows, if, perhaps improbably, you do not already have it.

ουκ εχω ατρεκεως ειπειν, ουδε τινα γνωμην περι αυτων αποΦαινομαι αλλην γε η την περ αυτοι Αργειοι λεγουςι. Herod.VII.152.1 Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I've been postponing adding that to my userpage because I'm so bad with Greek. Well, painstaking addition of accents gives - I think - οὐκ ἔχω ἀτρεκέως εἰπεῖν, οὐδέ τίνα γνώμην περὶ αὐτῶν ἀποφαίνομαι ἄλλην γε ἢ τήν περ αὐτοὶ Ἀργεῖοι λέγουσι. Though the exact phrase is probably ἐγὼ δὲ ὀφείλω λέγειν τὰ λεγόμενα, πείθεσθαί γε μὲν οὐ παντάπασιν ὀφείλω καί μοι τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος ἐχέτω ἐς πάντα τὸν λόγον· ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῦτα λέγεται.

(For the curious: this is in response to an interaction at WP:RS/N.) Relata refero (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Voice???

What do you mean by the term "neutral voice"? I cannot find any definition of this term Bobanni (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph

Why do you think that The Telegraph (Kolkata) should be the main topic. I don't see why this is more notable than the rest and I think "The Telegraph" should redirect to the dab page. Rich257 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Day

Why do you remove the case of Preity Zinta? This is an example where Mid-Day lost in case and is relevant for anybody interested in Mid-Day to understand the complete picture or at-least the pattern. Its owner makes a movie that justifies the Bombay Riots, has support of who's who in left of Indian Media for its case against the supreme court justice. Preity Zinta case actually establishes a pattern of co-operation between a group whose interest seems to be aligned and hence important part of Mid-Day topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.224.56 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article

I will just request you to put the article Religious violence in India in your watchlist. I am especially afraid of these edits [6], [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Surely he's learnt by now to at least produce some semblance of a source? Relata refero (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --Soman (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

EE articles et al.

You should visit the frozen conflict zones, where editors have accused other editors (myself among them), through their denouncement of the documented actions and policies of the Transnistrian regime, of "black propaganda" which is directly resulting in the murder of innocent Transnistrian children (because of the resulting denial of Western aid.) People are paid to push propaganda on Wikipedia. What you see is more complex than mere locking of horns over ideology.
   Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask you to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, deletions prior. PētersV (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I did expand on the above a bit and suggest some "over and above" etiquette for EE articles. Unfortunately, experiences have been so bad that innocent editors entering the fray and acting precipitously or stridently in a manner closely associated with party ABC pretty much get tarred and feathered with whatever ABC is wearing at the moment. Personally, I think our current dialog on the Denial of the Holodomor title is making progress. —PētersV (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As to "the plague", what's described there has been, from my perspective, been invoked more by the anti-nationalists than the nationalists. I have always been scrupulous to stick to reputable sources and to not reinterpret them as saying something they do not or injecting stridency which did not exist in the original. My position as a "nationalist" (and I've been accused of worse) where the conduct of the Soviet Union is concerned is that the facts speak for themselves and require no further amplification. I'm not here to pursue an agenda, I'm here to pursue the facts as presented by reputable sources wherever they take us. That I have confidence those facts as presented by reputable sources debunk Soviet versions of EE history reflects my confidence in reputable sources and facts, not editorially blinding nationalist chauvinism. Only on Wikipedia is nationalist a dirty word and patriotism and love of one's heritage an affliction to be expunged. —PētersV (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic feminism

Hello! I reverted your move concerning Islamic feminism and Ni putes, ni soumises. The group is definitely concerned about feminism, as its name implied, but not about "Feminism in Islam". It is not because Fadela Amara, its former president, is a Muslim that it can be considered an "Islamic feminist" group, as, quite to the contrary, it is in full-line with French Republican laïcité, supporting for example the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. You may find more information at Feminism in France#From the 1980s to today. You will see many references to laïcité, equality and the Republic on its website, none to Islam as such: for example.Cheers! Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide deniers category

FYI. I added another category for deletion. In case if you want to reconsider your vote. VartanM (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

%$%@#$& articles

There are some articles like %$%@#$& in wikipedia. Goa Inquisition - a typical %$%@#$& article and has been tagged properly. Wandhama massacre another this type of article full of OR. Moplah Rebellion - another typical %$%@#$& article. Terrible lack of source. Some edits should be done so that the %$%@#$&-ness can be removed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

M. Woolsey Stryker

Done. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC/DemolitionMan

RfC filed, you many wish to have a look. Ronnotel (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your biased editing

From the talk page of Talk:Mission (Christian). The full discussion can be found here [8]. "There's a new one. I wondered when you were going to bring out WP:OR. So let's see now, so far you've claimed that this section and links violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and warned about WP:UNDUE. You seem to be on a mission here. Please don't feel that I'm attacking but let's just review. First, one of the links you originally removed was an internal link to "Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities" [9], why? In your explanation you stated "I've removed some material sourced to various sources that don't meet our requirements as spelled out in WP:RS" and "The only parts of the article I removed were those sourced to unreliable sources". Hmmm, that internal link - which doesn't quote but merely cites another Wikipedia article - doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements? Odd, but I guess it makes sence if one is trying to chip a way at the section. The other link you removed for not being reliable I've replaced with one that I believe is. You also stated that I could "feel free to ... rewrite the section" and "Simply put, if you want them in there, you have a right to put them in there to the degree that they are notable views...". However, you later decided that "I don't happen to think that these aspects improve the article" and "this discussion could more profitably be moved" somewhere else. Anyway, let's see what sources I've left in or provided in the disputed section in order: a reference to The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi with volume and page number, organiser.org, news.bbc.co.uk, a Wikipedia link, another bbc news link, satp.org, another organiser.org link, one from christianaggression.org which I've defended, an fpc.state.gov link and one going to a Christian Century article. Now you've stated that "The Organiser.org article might be acceptable", "the SATP links - which I am accepting for the moment" and after initially rejecting Christian Century you later stated "on closer look I suppose its acceptable". So where's the problem? Well, I guess you did reverse yourself again with "I am saying that none of the links provided here are useful" *sigh*. Aside from throwing around a bunch of acronyms (which, by the way, Wikipedia discourages), you've provided no substance to your arguments. You originally stated "Please defend the use of each of these sources in the light of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you wish to restore them". I've now done that. But again, your persistance combined with your demonstrated lack of an application of anything close to the same rigourous standards for the Christian counter-claims section makes it look like you have an agenda here to censor. To my mind you are indistinguishable from a troll, who is merely here to disrupt. Please desist. 63.196.193.172 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it huh? Again you delete a Wikipedia internal reference, Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities plus another Wiki link to the article, Nagaland Rebels, both of which are related to missionary activity in India. Additionally you have deleted a BBC news source, Hindu preacher killed by Tripura rebels. What, not RS enough for you? You also deleted sources you previously approved, satp.org and organizer.org. Next you say that I "misrepresented" a state department source. How's that? I simply quoted them. Where is the misrepresentation? Then you removed the link to christianaggression.org with two words, "non-RS". About your previous comment "the SATP links - which I am accepting for the moment" which statement you made on the 23rd of February. I see though that you had no problem using the site yourself when it suited your purpose on the 18th in another article as here. Another editor, KBN, apparently has had the same problem with you, "I wonder what your views of Evangelists in India are, or whether you know of what activities they are involved in India, and whether you know that Hinduism is not an exclusive religion. I have tons of incidents I can cite but they will deleted by you or Relata Refero as a biased source, (the irony)" [10]. If I need to I will make a complaint. Perhaps you will win since there is an inherent bias against unregistered users, however both you and I know what you're doing. 63.196.193.175 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"

Keep it on the article talkpage, please, where I believe I have replied to you. Also, I think I've been very sensitive to your concerns, and I am the last person who would be carelessly biased against IP editors, as I have done most of my editing here as an unregistered editor. Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru

Hello Relata refero. Can you please explain why did you removed the following texts from the article Jawaharlal Nehru?

"Hindu nationalists also criticise Nehru for allegedly appeasing the Indian Muslim community at the expense of his own conviction in secularism. Nehru's neutral foreign policy is criticised as hypocritical in lieu of his affinity for the Soviet Union and other socialist states. He is also blamed for ignoring the needs of India's military services and failing to acknowledge the threat posed by the People's Republic of China and Pakistan."

I did not included the above passage in the biography. I only removed a template. You should talk with the author of passage before removing them. Or, you should have placed the template {{fact}}.

And, Nehru was an agnostic. An atheist is someone who deny the existance of God. Lacking faith in God is not atheism. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias question

I have responded to your question on my talk page. HokieRNB (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal IP

Have a look at Special:Contributions/63.196.193.21. And this edit [11]. Adding Christian science monitor and Christian aggression as references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, also have a quick look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see this IP's disruptive comments in your talk page. A range block may be needed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to Relata refero, but I have to say something. You sir, Otolemur crassicaudatus, are a complete jackass. After one reversion of your deletion of my RS sources you threatened that you were going to "report me for vadalism". I have no patience for truth hiders and twisters such as yourself. Wikipedia articles are not Christian propaganda but are supposed to be factually based to the best the evidence allows. By the way, what are you trying to imply by the checkuser thing? I have contributed to many articles and have never been blocked. What about you? 63.196.193.21 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Desione on Talk:British Raj

It's probably best not to feed Desione on Talk:British Raj, something I've only just realized myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata, relatum

Hi Relata, hope you don't mind me mentioning that the statement Relatum and refero are the neuter past participles, singular and plural, of the verb conjugated referro on your user page doesn't quite hit the mark; it would have to be "Relatum and relata are ...". (And I think it should be refero.) Cheers, Jayen466 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.