Hey there, I do support SOME of your edits on Wikipedia, however there are alot of abuses and users worried about your behavior. I strongly suggest that you maintain wikipedia policy more when editing, I would hate to see an end to some of your beneficial editing due to banning. If certain users are particularly abusive abrasive or just generally being arrogant and insolant around you, archive evidence of such so that if you have some spare time or the said user becomes particularly aggressive you can easily have an admin step in. (not commenting specifically, but I have had issues with Iwazaki before also, don't be dis-heartened and edit at your fancy within Wikipedia policy). --Sharz 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please e-mail me. It is in my user page RaveenS

Hi, I have a question about the Hindu swastika - it's peripheral to the big brouhaha happening at WikiProject Hinduism, so I'm asking you here (and I'm not trolling, I really want to answer a puzzle in my mind). You mentioned in that discussion that the Hindu Swastika faces opposite direction from the Nazi version. I always thought that too - but the Hindu version that is being so discussed, and other Hindu versions that I've seen recently, are facing the same direction as the Nazi version. The Nazi version is at an angle, as you point out. But most Hindu swastikas that I see face the same way as the Nazi. However, my memory of Hindu temples, and some photos I've seen of older Hindu temples especially, shows the swastika turning opposite to the Nazi swastika, and opposite to the Hindu version that's on Wikipedia. Has the Hindu version changed over time? Is there different mystical meaning to the different versions, as one person I've heard has said? It seems that Buddhist version is often left-facing. Some samples: much discussed WP version right facing, Nazi flag right facing, old Buddhist version left-facing, Buddhist left-facing, Buddha with left-facing. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When I just noticed some personal attack on your page, I considered if I should revert it, but then I noticed that there was a bit more to it, and I didn't like what I saw. I had just planned on writing to both of you that the community would appreciate if you could discuss changes on the talk page, and then I noticed that you did just that. I'm not specifically familiar with the topic, but this sounds like a very reasonable argument to me. Appreciated! You're on the right way! — Sebastian 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just deleted the whole insiduous PA discussion. It was of course an escalation, and it's always hard to say who began. You would look good if you edited your comment by striking out the first sentence (and by indenting it, while you're at it). Cheers, — Sebastian 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you yet another thing: You could build up trust and prevent from people having knee-jerk reactions to your edits by writing edit summaries - it would show us all that you are not trying to hide anything. What I do is I set my user preferences (under Edit → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary) so that I can't forget it. When I really don't want a summary, I just enter a blank space. — Sebastian 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also do this now. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! BTW, the offending editor has just been blocked for a week. Happy editing! — Sebastian 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting letter to the editor which you posted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1967446,00.html. I have always been wondering how Gandhi could combine being a devote Hindu and opposing the caste system. — Sebastian 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't worked on that article for months. His assertions that eating pork would make you promiscuous were the topic of the day, as were the claims of his supporters that he had memorized not only the Qur'an, but the Bible, and all the Hindu scriptures. The claims re Muhammad in the Vedas is a new one.

I stayed away because there are many people there who came to fight, and stayed to fight, and have no interest in actually producing a good article. I was losing my temper and my balance and I thought I should stop. He's not an important person and that's not an important article. Zora 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If Oak is fringe, why then are some of the Indian editors defending him as if he were the standard-bearer of the BJP? Why are they calling critics of Oak "anti-Hindu"? Zora 09:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I kindly request you to have a look on the Princess Diana Institute of Peace whether the details I have submitted are meeting the criteria for citation. Thanks Rajsingam 11:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs User talk:Seraphimblade User talk:Freedom skies User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 User talk:Dangerous-Boy User talk:Ccscott User talk:Dennisthe2 User talk:DoDoBirds User talk:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas User talk:Tarinth

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 8 2007 to 2002 Gujarat violence

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

per [2]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

How's the dp? Is it still as active as it used to be? Cheers Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop revert-warring. It will only result in a block – [3]. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors; and review Wikipedia's policy of civility. Your recent edits have been disruptive, please refrain from making personal attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my complete report on the actions of this user here [4], clearly establishing a pattern of incivility, tendentious editing, and prejudiced remarks with an intent to incite. Also, a pattern of violating WP:LIVING by my analysis. He still continues to revert-war on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. Do you agree that his post there is defamatory? Rumpelstiltskin223 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must be misreading something in the debate or misinterpreting something, because some of your responses have somewhat thrown me off. From what I've seen from your editing you've been near perfect (incredible), and that furhter backs up my theory. Again, sorry for putting any undo criticism on you, --Danielfolsom 07:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh I see what I did, I actually looked at that screen, and then I confused who did what, so when I read the discussion, it only mixed things up more. Again, I'm really sorry.--Danielfolsom 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read throgh it again, and that was it, I seriously feel horrible about this, I've even dedicated the first section of my userpage to u, hopefully next time I'll read better.

My biggest screwups:

DEDICATED TO RUMPELSTILTSKIN223 At 2:47a.m. Eastern Time, January 11th 2007, I looked at a before/after log and confused who did what, causing me to be on the wrong side of a dispute and to ridicule Rumpelstiltskin223 (thus the dedication). To my knowledge, this is my first huge mistake on Wikipedia, however because of its severity I will now keep track of what mistakes I become guilty of - this will hopefully remind myself to always be cautious against editing or getting involved in an article.

--Danielfolsom 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfoortunately I have constraints that prvent me from doing anything more than responding to discussions that are already ongoing until after the coming weekend, suggest you put the information on the article discussion page and request either unprotection of the article or an edit of the article at WP:RFPP alternatively post to WP:AN/I. I'll check the article on monday/tuesday night my time(UTC+8) to ensure the edit has occured, but unless my circumstances change thats the best I can offer. Gnangarra 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rumpelstiltskin, Thanks a lot for your welcoming gesture.I am trying to be a good wikipedian and your suggestions will definitely help me in ataining that goal.

With good wishes,

Unmesh Bangali 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumpelstiltskin223. Through my experience and that of others, the case of Devanampriya is kind of a difficult one. Greek and Aramaic were clearly important languages in the Mauryan Empire (to the point of Ashoka making edits in them), and it is precisely because the Mauryans expanded northwestward that such populations came under their sway. Although Devanampriya proudly ackowledges the conquests, he denies their linguistic consequences. I am afraid I do not really have a solution, as it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable argument with the guy. Well, that's part of the Wikipedia experience I guess. On the Mauryan page, I did manage to have Hellenistic sources on the Mauryan Empire included after very lenghthy discussions. Best regards. PHG 08:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! --Petercorless 12:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rumpelstiltskin223, great job adding those pictures to the Mumbai page! I was looking through your contrib history, and I noticed that you tend to make lots of edits in a row on a page. I am prone to do the same thing myself, but it creates a hassle for the other editors. I found that if I use the "show preview" button, it allows me to keep working on and updating the page without creating a long page history log. Also (just because I do this all the time too) try to remember to use the "edit summary", as it makes it easier on everyone else. Happy editing, and keep up the good work!

Hi Rumpelstiltskin,

Regarding your report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism on User:Justin67, I did not block Justin67 (diff) because it is not a case of simple vandalism, which is what this page is for. It appears to be a content dispute, and as such, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve this dispute. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not simple vandalism. He's making highly inflammatory edits, sure, but Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism deals with simple vandalism, not inflammatory edits. However, I will issue a personal statement (rather than a template message) telling him that such edits are not acceptable. If he continues making the same edits, then he can be blocked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at those edits, I take back what I said. Those aren't inflammatory edits, those are POV edits. Yes, it can be offensive to some (maybe even many), but labelling an organisation fascist or not is still a content dispute, not a matter of vandalism. I still suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve the problem. I suggest you start with this. The problem with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is that it really should be used for cases of simple vandalism that admins can look at the account's contributions and instantly tell that it is vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is now. He was already warned against making these edits, otherwise he will be blocked (a "final warning"), and he continued to make that edit, therefore I have blocked him. At this point, it is probably appropriate to report any similar actions to WP:AIV, noting that he is repeating the same edits that got him blocked in the first place. Thanks for your patience, Deathphoenix ʕ 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223, there is general agreement on talk that this article should be free of the poorly-sourced POV which has cluttered it thusfar. Though I personally agree with it, your attempt at a lengthier summary was skewed and as poorly-sourced as what was removed (in fact was part of what was removed). I invite you to join Itaqallah and I in keeping junk - both Dawah and anti-Dawah - off this article until credible secondary sources can be brought to bear.Proabivouac 06:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Gulab Jamun! Looks yummy. Hopefully, soon, both Pakistani and Indian editors will work towards making Taxila a FA, rather than fighting over scripts. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Devadasi talk page and the user, Jezhumble. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. Please under the discussion section wait for Jezhumble to post her openning arguments, and respond only once - in that time I will have finished reading the pages involved in this case. I look forward to working with you, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are currently online there is something I'd like to show you and Jezhumble in that page i mentioned, so please get over there within the next 5 minutes, thanks!--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I posted my final comments, but you and me need to work on the HRW thing. I think I posted a thread a while ago asking if it was considered credible, because if it is, you shouldn't tell someone it's not. Haha, but until then (oh ya, remember to check out the page), --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the language I used in the Devadasi talk page. Jezhumble 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Jezhumble

Namaste Rumpelstiltskin223. I noticed you reverted to the same version I did on the Tere Bin article. Despite comments and sources provided by me and another respected editor, Anonymous IP continues to revert the article. Any comments that you might have would be highly appreciated at the Tere Bin talk page. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Anti-Brahmanism. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Anti-Brahmanism).

The duration of the block is 24 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=I have a question. If a user's edits are extremely racialist towards a particular ethnic group (in this case, Brahmins), not supported by any reliable sources, a violation of WP:FRINGE, and the user is persistent in his revert-warring, does 3rr apply for me in this case? If my repairs to the article in question viz Anti-Brahmanism are against wikipedia rules then please intimate me and refuse my request for unblock, else please unblock me. Also, please provide me with instructions on how to deal with such users. The difs of his edits are below|decline=You have been repeatedly blocked for 3rr violations and edit warring. You need to be extra careful not to violate these. If you feel WP:FRINGE and other such policies are being violated, you should come to a consensus on the article's discussion page or request additional help rather than continuing to edit war. -- [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)}}.

[5] - This revert also contains personal attack against me.

[6]

The content of his reverts, as you can see, are extremely racialist in their tone and polemic, and are the views of a fringe anti-Hindu cult known euphemistically as the Self-respect movement

Rumpelstiltskin223 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rumpel! I'm sorry that you're going through such a hard time. I haven't looked at the reversions themselves, but understand that it must be hard to see people do things that oppose our innermost feelings. From my experience with mediation I know that your questions are not just rhetoric questions, they are a serious desire to find a way out of such quandaries. Moreover, I know that you have been trying, while we have failed to give you a answer to your important question so far. Maybe you can find the cheat sheet helpful which I wrote for another editor who was in a similar situation. Let me know what you think of it! — Sebastian 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.240.254.10 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil in your communications. There is no reason to be rude and call my edits 'nonsense'. I am simply removing original research and unreliable sources. MinaretDk 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)