Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam

Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked you on January 28 to provide clear descriptions of what you did, and described exactly what I meant:

You consistently ignored this request since. Then I added a template to the article that clearly states that you should refrain from controversial issues. You just reverted this for the second time.

Please refrain from any edits on the articles currently under mediation. Please also read Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26_Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India#Proposal_for_new_procedure.

Thank you, — Sebastian 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving the reply here from my talk page - please let's keep the thread together. — Sebastian 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sebastian,

Kindly consider:-

• I provided the link to Muhammad bin Quasim. See here for confirmation
• I reported the changes in a table on the discussion page of the case. The format was a table, as you wanted.
• I edited in the "revival" section, which Tigeroo edited before me. His editing constituted more than Dr. BR Ambedekar.
• I edited in the bin Quasim section. You yourself said that I was free to edit there and mention additional details as well.

I have taken all of the steps you asked me to, Sebastian.

Take into account the constant removal of sourced content by Tigeroo, Sebastian. His agenda of removing every mention of Islam's damage to Buddhism should be clear by now. I don't believe you would advocate Quasim's destruction of a Buddhist holy shrine as "stamping his victory?"

The revert war was not started by me, Tigeroo kept on reverting the entire article. I just exercised my right to edit on the revival and Quasim sections, the well sourced text did not deter Tigeroo from incessant revrsion though. Is unilateral editing by one party involved fair? especially when the other party's edits are incessantly removed by that party.

I extend a request to kindly take that into account and restore my version, kindly judge the content for yourself before you take to the ramblings of the stubborn.

I will reply to Tigeroo's queries in a few hours.

Extending best regards as always,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit quality was only a small issue, but since you mentioned it I want to give you a reply. Yes, it is true that you reinserted the link to Qasim. But this wasn't what I was asking. I asked "Why [did you delete the link]? If it was an error then I ask you to look through all of your changes to check that they did at least not lower the quality at the basic editorial level." You didn't reply to that, and I have no indication that you checked all of your changes. But you don't have to reply - just let's forget about this; it is not really a concern for this mediation.

Table: OK, I see the table now. I thought it was written by Tigeroo, because I saw only his signature there (from his reply). Sorry about that, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Since Tigeroo reverted your changes, you don't have to worry about the tables anymore. My real issue at this time is the following, for which I'd like to dedicate its own section. — Sebastian 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you started in the right direction. What I'm missing is the level of detail I asked for when I wrote "I’m using “change” different from “edit”. There are probably a dozen or more changes per major edit.", and when I used "deleted “bringing Indian societies into contact with Islam”" as an example in the table. But I realize I could have been clearer about that.

I'm sorry that I can't fulfil your request for evaluating POVs at the level of large edits like this. Maybe “chunks” would have been a more descriptive word than “changes”. What I mean are small changes that do not spread over more than one sentence, or are just replacing one term. Please reply to my proposal on WT:MEDCAS/DoBiI#Proposal for new procedure and let me know if you agree.

Thank you, — Sebastian 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your valued opinion is requested at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India#Can we invite another mediator?. — Sebastian 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll leave Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts alone for now. But as it stands, the "Opposing theories" does not accurately convey the work of the authors cited. Matsuda, Lin and Ling are concerned with the authenticity of Yi Jin Jing, not with the historicity of Bodhidharma.
JFD 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Good luck with your exams.
JFD 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]