User talk:Relata refero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Relata refero (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 10 February 2008 (→‎re:3rr: copy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recent activity:John Lade, Richard Barlow, Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk.

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)[reply]

I hope that's better now! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely well-written; congratulations! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barlow

Updated DYK query 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tiggy Legge-Bourke

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

Strange

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query 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)[reply]

.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)[reply]

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

Note

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Coldfusion223

Is this guy a banned user? Corvus cornixtalk 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Relata_refero&oldid=190355328"