I tried editing the article, but it is write-protected. I looked at the talk page, but I didn't really see any active conversations that require my attention. I don't really know very much about Hinduism, especially from a historical perspective.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one is back and has been citing some of your research in Arbcomm to get us banned (his agenda for a long time). Look at this post of his[1]. I think that you should comment in his evidence page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence Hkelkar 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want you to know that you violated the three-revert rule on Bodhidharma. I haven't reported it or anything, but take this as a sign you need to go discuss your changes on the Talk: page. Good luck. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been asked several times to discuss your point of view on the Talk pages before making these radical changes. Please do so. --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to this article. I have already mentioned that your previous edit removed several sources and added a link to a highly-contentious "Negationism" section of another article, and I asked you to discuss on the talk page first. In response, you have simply put your edits back again. Please stop doing that, and first enter into a proper dialogue to see if you can get support from the community for your point of view. It is much too radical and contentious simply to be put in on your say-so. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take some time to elaborate a criticism of Dalrymple based on his attacks on Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul? I have found an article here by Farrukh Dhondy that can be used as a ref for it.Hkelkar 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some spelling etc corrections. I have also added comments (you'll see them in the edit box) about sentences that I am not so sure about. Do look over them, put it in the Dalrymple article and thank you for your efforts.Hkelkar 11:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some slight re-arrangements and added some bits from the last pages of the article, detailing criticism of Dalrymple. If you think it's ok now, then could you plug it into Dalrymple's article?Thanks.Hkelkar 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've certainly had our differences in the past but accusing others of belonging to a cabal isn't your usual style.

You don't seem your usual self.
It's almost as if you're someone else.
JFD 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall either messing with your article

or starting the cabal issue

A few editors, with Han Chinese nationalists amongst them, tried to write in the second para itself that Bodhidharma did not exist.

— Freedom skies, 03:10, 17 November 2006

By your article I meant Disputed Indian origins of Chinese martial arts.

Kenny was working on your version. I provided dual links to both our versions. Kenny later on shifted the content from those versions to his page. At the cost of repition, dual links. This is what I propose for Chan/Zen. Let the mention of conflicting conspiracy theories not be done in these articles but instead have them link up to the main Bodhidharma article.

You remove a perfectly useful disambig from the top of the page as well as actual quotation from Batuo.

And you removed Batuo himself from the Shaolin while attempting to push a fake title for a webpage. Getting worked up and always assuming the worst ?

And you accuse others of vandalism? Kindly read above.

A few editors, with Han Chinese nationalists amongst them, tried to write in the second para itself that Bodhidharma did not exist.

— Freedom skies, 03:10, 17 November 2006

Pre-emptive guilt ?? ?? You did not contribute then why would you take that so personally ??

Freedom skies _{Send a message to Freedom skies} 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you would refer to the material in question on Bodhidharma as a "conspiracy theory"? It is as if you are using this simply as an epithet. Also, the word "negationism" means "denial of historic crimes", and so it is clearly a non sequitur to use in this case.

I don't know who or what the "Ryuchi, etc. citations" you mention are. I reverted a few of your edits to Bodhidharma simply because they were made illicitly (more than 3 reverts per day), so I don't know all the details in question. I have certainly noticed you removing text from pages, though.

The bottom line is that we begin the Bodhidharma article by saying, "Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk ... traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China", which implies that he was a real person. This means that we have a responsibility to clarify the fact that he may or may not actually have lived. Otherwise, we are failing in our responsibilty as encyclopedia editors to correctly inform our readers. If other articles about religious figures are failing to live up to this standard, I suggest that you politely and conservatively take it up on the talk pages of those articles.

By the way, I've noticed that there have been several occasions recently when you have reverted other editors edits with messages describing those edits as "vandalism". This is entirely unacceptable and it is imperative that you stop it. Vandalism is when someone goes to a page and deliberately defaces it, such as by changing the words "George Bush" to "Stupidface McChimpy". It is very uncivil for you to accuse other editors of deliberately defacing articles.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The reason that we must introduce the reader to conflicting theories about Bodhidharma before describing his "actual" biography is that he doesn't have an actual biography. He is the subject of numerous stories. To state things about his biography without clarifying that they are not historically documented would be misleading. I have no hesitation about mentioning other theories by scholars.

2. "Negationism" is not a word that appears in either Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary. However, Wikipedia states that "Negationism is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism." Clearly, this is not relevant to Bodhidharma.

3. "Could I not say the same of the editors in opposition ?" No. None of the other editors reverted the same page more than 3 times in one day.

4. Brittannica is hardly the only source we have at our disposal. We are trying to make the best possible encyclopaedia, which may involve making one better than Brittannica.

5. I have seen you use the term "vandal" or "vandalism" in reference to edits which are obviously not vandalism. This is incivility, and you can be blocked for it.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bodhidharma currently has a biography section, but it does not describe any "actual biography". Instead, it consists of passages from various works mentioning a monk named Bodhidharma. They sometimes conflict with each other; for example, one states that he is Persian, but another states that he is South Indian.

2. In any event, "negationism" is a totally inappropriate word to use in a Wikipedia article on this subject. It's meaning is clearly derogatory, and it's not at all clear to me why you think this is political revisionism.

3. You say, "I know all too well that the other editors are privy to the 3RR, sir.", but why the heck don't you actually follow the rules then?

4. You are blatantly misusing the term "vandalism", and you must stop doing it. Here are the first few examples that I notice among your contributions: Dravidian martial arts: "rv vandalism by Kenny"; you are in fact reverting Kennethtyson removing some information that he feels is not properly sourced (it is sourced from the website of a travel agent); similar edits occurred on three other pages; you twice [2][3] referred to edits by JFD on Indian influence on Chinese martial arts as "severe vandalism", but these were actually disagreements about what sources to include; a similar dispute on Zen, Chan, and Batuo led you to describe JFD and Kennethtyson's edits there as vandalism; on Shaolin you say "undoing Han Chinese vandalism which removes Batuo as the founder of the Shaolin", but the edit is in fact part of a disagreement about how much text about Batuo to include in the article, not vandalism; and on Bodhidharma you twice [4][5]referred to "vandalism by an unsigned IP", when in fact all he had done was to move back some text that you had recently moved out of the intro. None of these cases are actually vandalism.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Shaolin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 12:46, 20 November 2006 (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 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]