Dear Friends,

The article on 'Comunidade' as contributed by you seems incomplete and carelessly articulated in terms of totality and meaning. Also the hyperlinked word 'foro' gives a wrong meaning and is totally irrelevant. Please do not waste your precious time editing the same. A comprehensive literature on 'Comunidades' has been compiled and published by competent authorities and will be uploaded soon.

The Gaunkars of Goa shall do the needful henceforth.

Thank you once again.

Best Regards --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Administrative divisions of India. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ideal Democratic Setup, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Appears to be a compilation of WP:OR without any reference. And already completely covered in Democracy

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaunkars of Goa. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 09:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gaunkars of Goa (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rumping (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Ad1970india (talk · contribs · count), i just want to know whether you are aware of Anti-sock policies of wikipedia? -- Tinu Cherian - 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is my big brother, plays cool , doesn't want voilence, wants to passify everyone. Maybe a right guy for wiki --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{Userpage}} and __NOINDEX__ to your userpage, since it is likely to be mistaken for a genuine wikipedia article otherwise. As it is your userpage appears to be a content fork of the actual Goa article, and is perhaps a violation of WP:UP#NOT, especially since it contains POV/false information and you have made no attempts at improving the wikipedia article itself. Using userpage as a soapbox is likely to get it deleted, although I have no intentions of going down that path at present.
Finally, can you clarify if User:Goa.goa is your sock account ? Abecedare (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wasn't aware of sock policies. You may take appropriate action--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This userpage is original. So kindly remove the added tags. This content is being created to help the existing article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunidade, since the article has multiple issues. Since the article is ready I wish to add the same on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunidade ? What do I do to avoid the article being called fork? --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that article talk pages are not intended to be used as a soapbox to push views that do not make it into the main article. Repeatedly attempting to do this is liable to get you blocked. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really understand the soapbox business. I just want to work on articles simutaneously. How should i proceed on that? Also you have blocked this user page. Do you want me to edit? or should i quit. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ganvkaar, Thats a good idea! Quit! Shut down your computer; go out on the streets and bazaars; and talk to people; make new friends and get new ideas. Because there is a real world out there that is very different from the one you imagine it to to be. .

You think that Goa is not a part of India just because the Government of India did not sign an agreement with every ganvkaar in Goa to incorporate his territory? You think that if you manange to get the status of Goa changed from "State of India" to an "Independent country" on Wikipedia , it will actually become one? Im sorry but in the real world, that is not how territorial aquisition works. Ask your fellow Goenkaars if they feel Indian occupation of Goa is illegal. Tell them to protest against it if they do feel that they are under occupation. Ask them why they participate in elections and pay taxes. Ask them not to accept government subsidies in schools and farms. Take out morchas in Panaji. Start a revolution! Bring the occupier to his knees. And when you win, you can decide if you want to retain Goa as a united country or in the form of 250 odd countries(as per your def). And then come back to Wikipedia and update the status of Goa to an Independent country. By all means, yes, We cannot and we will not stop you then. Till then, Goa remains a part of India, in the real world and on Wikipedia!

I tried to help you out because we have very few regular Goan editors on WIkipedia(actually , just one) and the Goa related articles need a lot of work(which a non-Goan like me is doing). I thought that by helping you out you may turn into a productive Wikipedian . If anyone else had behaved the way you did I would have asked the admins to block them pretty soon. Unfortunately, you werent worth the effort. So be it. Quit! You are better off sulking alone in your imaginary world than wasting the time of other Wikipedians. Dev bori raat deum. --Deepak D'Souza 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak, I tried my best to bring out the true facts on Goa especially those which were not covered in your articles. Nothing was mentioned on the comunidades and that is where our arguments started. If wikipedia does not like to face facts (even with references/sources), what can I say? Now try your level best to integrate whatever you can and feel, I think I have almost finished. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't have time to go through all references provided. Let all Indian wikipedians read this. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=status+goa+non+self-governing+territories&source=bl&ots=XgsZhvjrCi&sig=hXi_GSvDXYCydeiuLo7ZA1E_8mg&hl=en&ei=O_qnSuSKNYj6kAX9r-2KCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, irmao; you have done my homework. Have you read it completely? The last para states that the draft resolution was "not adopted". Which means the UN did not have anything to say about the Indian annexation of Goa; not in 1961, not in 2009! Got it? Its about time you accepted that the truth is "what is"; not "what you want it to be". --Deepak D'Souza 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too excited, resolution 'not adopted' simply means the people of Goa have the right to self-determination in their sovereign territories. It is yet to be exercised. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I guessed, you are still not ready to wake up from your dreamland. So this will be my last post. Any more of your rants on Wikipedia and I will proptly revert them without explanation. If you insist on pushing your lick , I will definetely ask for a block. Good luck with your Independence movement! Viva Goa!

Oh Deepak! I just feel sorry for your level of understanding. I only tried to make you (ignorant guys) aware of few facts (legal and historical) concerning Goa. Nobody is going for independence here. All my explanation was just for wikipedia editors, not for the content of the article. It is very important to mention about comunidades in the Goa page, without it, your article cannot be complete. I hope you understand soon. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, I have moved your userpage from User:Gaunkars of Goa to User:Gaunkars of Goa/Communidades. You can do any further editing you want here. Please do not use your userpage as a place to make a point. It contravenes Wikipedia policies. Also read Wikipedia:User page to understand the policies that specifically relate to what you can have and what you cannot have on a user page and its sub pages. --Deepak D'Souza 05:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User:Gaunkars of Goa\Communidades has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC). 13:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all content of my userpage as it proved too good to be on wikipedia.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also make sure you do not copy, save, distribute, or publish any content that was edited on this userpage, without my permission. I wish to contribute the content on other site/s. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't make any such promises. You agreed to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses when you contributed to the encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also recognise the special nature of Goa. Even a 1/3 sentence to the India article meets resistance. I am not trying to play sides but the introduction of the word "Goa" would be a useful addition to the history section of the India article.

You may have even stronger opinions. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, Following is true history of Goa, rest is all misleading. Who will understand Goa better than its indigenous people?;

Goa is a territory of the Indian sub-continent (do not mistake as Indian Union), a sovereign self-governing independent territory existing since times immemorial. It existed much before(about 2000 - 3000 years before) the formation of the Indian Union (just formed in 1947). How can India ever lay any claims on Goa, except in her imagination? So when Goa was under Portuguese rule, the United Nations proclaimed the territory as non self-governing. In 1961 India attacked Goa, and annexed it into the Union. The Indian annexation has been termed as illegal by the United Nations in the 987th & 988th meeting of the UN Security Council, http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-988.pdf . The people of Goa are yet to exercise their right to self-determination as per UN Charter Article 73e Chapter XI, Goa's legal status will only be determined thereafter. Believe it or not, this is the fact. This is the part of History wikipedia is afraid of, don't ask me why. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goa is a very special case. I believe it is important enough to be included in the India article. However, Goa is not the only topic related to India so it must not be too long. It is possible that it may only merit one sentence. Of course, there could be a link to a longer article. Not having any mention is not right, on the other hand.

Possible places to put it would be under history or administrative divisions. After some thought, I think it is better placed under administrative divisions. If it is under history, then it has to compete with the many things that has happened in the history of India. If it is under administrative divisions, then there could be a brief mention over territorial disputes with Pakistan and the special case of Goa.

If we have some agreement on what to do with Goa, we can present the case to the article. If we don't have agreement then it could mean that Goa is not mentioned. For example, if 3 editors bring it up individually over a few weeks, nothing will happened. But if 3 editors discuss things and then present it as "we 3 have discussed it and came up with a compromise" then there is more hope. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I have been requesting is to put Goa under question mark until things are legally settled and established. Weather to include Goa in the Administration Division of India can only be decided thereafter. At present the following needs attention; (1) Legal status of Goa with respect to international law (2) The geographical area belonging to State of Goa (3) The political History of Goa (4) The Comunidades of Goa, and so on...But the cowardly editors just don't dare to discuss. If they keep the discussion open to public, they will have all the answers. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep on carrying on, you'll get blocked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is the final straw: [1]. I am reporting this to the administrators. Its about time someone put an ned to your naonsense --Deepak D'Souza 07:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Grievance Before you proceed I think you are obliged to give genuine reasons and valid explanations. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaunkars of Goa. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding disruptive behaviour, threats and soapboxing. The thread is User:Gaunkars of Goa. Thank you. --Deepak D'Souza 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked, as you have been disruptively making inappropriate use of talk page space, soapboxing, using this project as a personal forum, and making threats against other users. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaunkars of Goa/Communidades, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gaunkars of Goa/Communidades and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Gaunkars of Goa/Communidades during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All references and sources are verifiable and I want the editors to do the needful before calling it vandalism, POV, or soapboxing, unreasonably. LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dear friends, No issues! You are the kings of wikipedia, what else can the scribes do? I was only trying to improve the article 'Comunidade' , on my user page, because that article needed attention. All facts, references, and sources are true and verifiable, just a verification is all that is needed. The content of 'Goa' had been unchallenged till now, so accepting facts may be the problem with you guys. No wonder you call it vandalism, POV, or soapbox. Just see that you put correct information on wikipedia , just don't know how many pages lie there containing false information. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080804220345AAzEwcK --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was only trying to improve the article 'Comunidade' , on my user page, because that article needed attention. All facts, references, and sources are true and verifiable, just a verification is all that is needed. It will be a big mistake to call it vandalism, POV, or soapbox.

Decline reason:

You appear to be at Wikipedia only to push a specific point of view. Since it has become clear that your point of view is not well sourced enough to become part of the encyclopedia, and since you do not appear to have any other interests at Wikipedia, there is no further work for you to do at Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Oh, that's not fair. Read the very first section of this page where I have specifically mentioned that I will be working on the article. You guys say that I am not contributing, but I was all the time contributing, I thought the user page could be used for progressing edits. Is that why you are calling it POV, soapboxing, vandalism? As far as verification goes it is your duty, I have provided all resources.

Decline reason:

Single purpose, original and unsubstantiated research, sockpuppetry. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

RECOMMENDATION LETTER I have know Gaunkars for about a week. I am on a wikibreak but specifically came back to write this before going back on wikibreak.

I have heard of bad things about this editor on ANI but I have not researched the matter so I cannot defend any such behaviour. Gaunkers and I share a common interest, Goa. I was trying to discuss with others how much information should be covered about Goa. I have no preconceived notion that there should be a lot covered about Goa nor nothing covered about Goa. I am open minded. Gaunkers is one of the few people that knows a lot about this subject and has been helpful to educate me on the matter. If his/her tactfulness or following the rules have not be perfect, do not discount the value that he/she brings to Wikipedia. At the very least, let him/her edit the user's own talk page and my talk page but do not chase him/her away permanently. Or perhaps requiring a short wikibreak on Goa.

Please, let's be nice and polite to each other during this holiday period. Deepavali is coming very soon. May your home light up with the joy and may this Deepavali bring prosperity, peace, happiness and good health to you and your family. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO GAUNKERS You are accused of making threats. Please do NOT do this! At the very least, tell those people that you are sorry that remarks were threatening and that was either not your intent or was just during a temporary fit of anger. Then pledge not to threaten again! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaunkars of Goa for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Deepak D'Souza 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already clarified before, look at the section 'ad1970india' above. -- (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I still maintain, this is unreasonable. Have a look at the article I was contributing to, only thing I was compiling it on my user page [2] . Compare it with your existing one [3] which has multiple issues, you can decide thereafter.

Decline reason:

You have not provided a valid reason for unblock per WP:GAB. I will leave your talk page open for editing for a bit, but you should not file new unblock requests unless you can provide one that is valid under our policy. Further inappropriate requests will lead to the page being locked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tone down the anger! Gaunkers, in Wikipedia, they do things their own special way. For example, some administrators like to lock up pages (page protection) giving the excuse that you asked for unblock too many times. This is not always right because it doesn't take much effort to deny unblock.

Administrators: Gaunkers has some information that I would like to consider and learn from regarding Goa. Please do not page protect the page. I will suggest that he/she discuss Goa with me on his/her talk page.

If you are absolutely set on page protection, please give me authority to remove unblock requests instead of page protecting the user talk page. I normally don't mess around with others' talk pages.

Gaunkers: If you have a useful dialogue with me about Goa and act like an upright citizen, I will ask for your unblock at a later date. This is not a promise, just a possibility. I haven't researched the accusations against you and know you only from a few talk page entries. Let's work together, all of us!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaunkers, what is your suggestion for Goa coverage in the India article? Keep in mind that there is a lot of facts and history of India so Goa should not be half of the article. Do you think 2 sentences are appropriate? What facts, if any, should be included.

Others, please use the India talk page for discussion, not here. This section is simply a discussion between Gaunkers and me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an open proposal for meatpuppetry to me. --Deepak D'Souza 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Deepak's user talk page. You are incorrect. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. Some people will interpret it as editing for a banned user, which is blockable. Also, regardless of the tactics, people will object to any sizable bit on the annexation of Goa, since it will creat undue weight with the other territorial annexations/integrations of Kashmir, Hyderabad, Pondicherry, not to mention the other big wars in the last 3000 years among the various divisions of the subcontinent, much bigger than the fate of a small territory like Goa. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack me or suggest that I am doing anything improper. If hypothetically banned editor, Hitler, had some good suggestions about the Finland or Alamogordo, New Mexico article, I would listen to what he had to say even if that same editor was accused of being a vandal and violently advocating Holocaust denial. I am not saying "Gaunkers, tell me what to write and where to insert it and I will write it".

There are few people in Wikipedia that know about Goa. If Gaunkers points me to the good references and tells me what those references say, this helps Wikipedia a lot. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For time being let us leave the puppet business aside, it is a totally different issue, I am suggesting to Jimbo privately.

Back to the important one, I can understand your problem, which is weather we should include objectionable or controversial issues on wikipedia. But who are we editors to decide that? As long as the information is supported with facts and verifiable resources, there shouldn't be any issues, and no one can logically object. Our job is to give adequate representation to factual data, weather somebody likes it or not dose not matter.

Finally, I am really not pressing for Goa history on any article. But what is wrong has to be objected and corrected with facts and verifiable resources, objectionable or not, that is what I believe in. There cannot be a compromise when it comes to information, I don't like the idea. -- (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I seek from you or anyone else is:

1. Is Goa special or deserves mention?
2. If so, what is notable about the situation?
3. Are there references for 2?
4. What are the most important details, if any, about Goa in relation to India?

Number 4 is pertinent to the India article. More detail is appropriate for the Goa article. One example of undue weight is as follows: Anna Nagar is an area of Chennai. Description of Anna Nagar in the India article would be undue weight (at least from what I know of the place). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you insist; Ans 1) Yes, Goa is special and deserves mention, especially the political History of it and its legal status. Ans 2) Its legality as a state of the Indian Union is questionable. The conquest and annexation of Goa by India itself was annunciated as illegal (UN Charter prohibits use of force) by the United Nations in its 988th Council meeting . Majority of the nations rightly demanded to resolve the issue through self-determination of the people. Nehru had also promised the same but he turned out to be a real chameleon and instead attacked Goa. He thought by attacking Goa, India could claim sovereignty over Goa, poor fellow didn't know the meaning of Non self-governing territory & Right to self-determination (Article 73e Chapter XI of the UN Charter). When Portugal conquered Goa in 1510, the Indian Union never existed, it came into being as an Union of States only in 1947, how on earth can it claim sovereignty over Goa? Thus the case of Goa has become a laughing stock in the case studies of International Law.

Also for the Indian Union to make Goa as one of its state, it has to meet the Constitutional obligations, e.g. obtaining Proprietorship Titles from the absolute owners or by signing Land Tenure Contract/Agreements with the absolute owners (in this case, Gaunkars of Goa, and not Portugal). So the treaty signed between Portugal and India as regards transfer of Sovereignty is null and void.

Ans 3) This is not my concept and imagination that is taking shape, this case is well documented and authored by many. Just type combination of relevant keywords in any search engines, you will get a plethora of information. [4]

Ans 4)see Ans 2.-- (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Liberation [5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10][11][12] -- (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again and I will make productive contributions instead. But I have been unreasonably accused of almost all possible reasons like disruptive behaviour, threats, soapboxing, POV, Single purpose, original and unsubstantiated research, and sockpuppetry for which I would like to clarify; Firstly, As a member, I have clearly mentioned that my interest lies in Goa and the comunidades. [13]. I started building the article [14] because it needed attention and I have clearly mentioned on the discussion page [15]. All references and sources given are verifiable, reliable and true, nothing is of my own. I have also openly requested editors to decide on any content not complying with wikipedia policies, and that the same to be discussed. So the accusations of soapboxing, POV, Single purpose, original and unsubstantiated research, are all baseless. Secondly, I have not disrupted or interfered with anybody's work or article, and I demand for a proof. I was building a article on my own user page to completion with dedication. My mistake was that I didn't know that the user page could not be used for the purpose. Thirdly, I was not aware of sockpuppetry policy. I had created another username User:Goa.goa just to use as additional editing space. I have already clarified in the userpage section [16] and to take appropriate action. Nowhere you shall find User:Goa.goa supporting User:Gaunkars_of_ Goa, for the accusation. The other User:ad1970india is created by my brother Ad1970india [17] I have clarified again. Finally, My threat was a natural reaction to derogatory statements and remarks made by the block requester, besides other things. This user does not have good manners, uses abusive words like NUTS, YOUR LICK, etc, instigates others, (Goa [18] Talk:India[19]) does not respect editors, deletes discussions and edits mercilessly without valid reasons and pushes his own POV [20]. Is this wikipedia policy? An urgent check is required on this block requester, he may be the real cause for all disruptions to many editors, this is what I see on many talk pages. He is not at all competent to judge the article.

Decline reason:

I'm still concerned about the whole personal attacks / threats thing. More specifically, I'm concerned about the future occurrence of them. You posted below that "Threats follow only after instigations and insults," which suggests to me that you still feel it's okay to threaten someone if you think that they're instigating/insulting you. Please note that it is never acceptable to threaten someone on Wikipedia—even if they instigate, insult, or even threaten you first. Furthermore, comments like this on talk pages are equally unacceptable, and, as it would have it, potentially instigating and insulting in and of themselves. On Wikipedia, "the truth" is rarely absolute, and in order to edit here, you really need to be able to work, patiently and civilly, with viewpoints that may not be your own. I have serious doubts that you would be able to handle not getting your way:

• [21] — We don't have battles or "challenges" on Wikipedia. Furthermore, we highly encourage disagreement and discussing it instead of silencing it.
• This unblock request shows you didn't read or didn't understand the policies/guidelines on soapboxing and neutral point of view, for the very next sentence shouts about letting the "truth" prevail. It is extremely important that you demonstrate that you understand that neutral point of view ("POV") isn't about letting "the truth" prevail.
• You say you cannot tolerate wrong information. Wikipedia is filled with things considered "wrong" by one group of people but "right" by another. Again, see also "The Truth".

In any case, I have to decline this unblock request— at least, for now. The blocking admin stated on the ANI thread that other admins are free to reduce the block length, but you would definitely need to demonstrate that you understand some of the most important guidelines before that would happen. --slakr^\ talk / 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS CONSIDERING UNBLOCK REQUEST
I have not researched Gaunkars edit history but I have learned some useful information about Goa from this user. Fewer than 0.1% of Wikipedia users know anything about Goa so this person is a good resource to discuss what is and is not appropriate about Goa for certain articles. Therefore, please do not page protect this page. If you order me to do so, I will remove unblock request IF page protection is threatened and this is the only way to prevent it. (This is not the ideal way to act, though).

Also, below is an executive summary of the above unblock request written for your convenience and wikified to conform to the style of successful requests.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UNBLOCK REQUEST (disclaimer: I am not submitting this request, merely summarizing it for Gaunkers of Goa to assist administrators considering this matter)

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again and I will make productive contributions instead.

I would like to clarify;

I have clearly mentioned that my interest lies in Goa and the comunidades. All references and sources given are verifiable, reliable and true, nothing is of my own. I have also openly requested editors to decide on any content not complying with wikipedia policies, and that the same to be discussed.

I was building a article on my own user page to completion with dedication. My mistake was that I didn't know that the user page could not be used for the purpose.

Already disclosed alternate accout, User:Goa.goa just to use as additional editing space and noted in the user page. Nowhere you shall find User:Goa.goa supporting User:Gaunkars_of_ Goa, for the accusation. The other User:ad1970india is created by my brother Ad1970india [22], also disclosed.

• I came across this user accidentally. He had a post immediately below or above mine. I have experience in the issue of being Blocked. He's been here ONLY since September 2009, I believe. So I'm willing to give him some pointers on how to avoid being blocked. I'm informing him now that he's free to ask me any questions regarding "good behavior" at Wikipedia. I haven't at all read his case report above (it's too long). But he appears extremely motivated. So if I guide him on how to avoid the mistakes I've made, maybe this will be a great benefit bto Wikipedia. By the way, I know almost noting about even about Goa itself - except that it reminds me of Boa constrictors. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS1: I'm correcting myself on one point: I see here that he's been a Wikipedian since February 2009. That's still a rather short time to learn the ins & outs of Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS2: Is there a signature of yours missing above? You sign a Talk page comment like this: ~~~~ or like this: --~~~~. The rest is automatic. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS3: I also notice a valid defense to "Sockpopitry" - the clame that the other user was his brother. Hard to disprove, but there must be a rule at WP to deal with such situations I strongly suspect. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. WP:BROTHER. But WP:ROOMMATE is more serious. The most important phrase is Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.. In short, if User:X and User:Y share the same IP, and are making the same sorts of edits to the same articles, they'll be treated as one person. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That I didn't know. Thanks for educating me on that point. I'm luck I'm an only child, otherwise I'd be in trouble because of this myself (especially if my brother was an identical twin who though just like me. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you still didn't learn how to sign your posting, right? I just taught you how above! Are you 12 years old? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) --Ludvikus (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine conditions under which Gaunkars might be allowed to resume editing. I won't propose these conditions until he gives assurances, here on this page, for the following:

1. No threats against other users
2. No personal attacks
3. He will limit himself to using a single account
4. He will give a list of all the different accounts he has used in the past.

If these assurances were given, I would offer my idea of how he might be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that GoG has been mailing me and his mails hardly reveal a change of heart. His recent unblock request came just after he emailed me that I had "opened new doors for him", whatever that meant. He has taken his rants off-wikipedia and is contiunuing with his abuses and threats. His last mail has been a strange mix of taunts as well as religious sanctimony. --Deepak D'Souza 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody interested in looking at the emails? His latest words are FOOL, IDIOT, etc. Do you expect me to keep quiet and patient after that? I wish somebody takes action against him now. -- (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaunkars, life is not fair. Unblocked users may call you fool or idiot but if you are blocked, you must be the most respectable and upright citizen in order to be unblocked. Afterwards, you must continue to do so. In Wikipedia, people generally want you to confess and not mention the faults of others. This does not mean you need to confess for something that you did not do. In any case, I am more interested in finding references about Goa, not being a lawyer trying to get someone out of Wikipedia prison. However, I try to be nice and help everyone. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have provide proof if you want anyone to believe you, as so far, we have seen only you attacking and threatening others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest Unblock Request and the links. Threats follow only after instigations and insults, don't be blind to everything-- (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• You just made a big mistake. That's not a way to talk at Wikipedia - even if many others do. Telling someone "don't be blind to everything" is a WP:Personal attack in my opinion. Showing someone's being blind is sufficient. Why did you need to tell the person 'not to be blind to everything'? I think now you must demonstrate here that you broke a WP rule. You don't have to apologize. Just show us you understand that you broke a rule by what you just did. If I was working with you on a Wikipedia article and you said that to me I'd be extremely disrupted. Do you understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In answer to your quest. Yes, you are expected to "keep quiet." If someone provokes you and you explode, unable to control your anger, than you are not going to be allowed back on Wikipedia. If someone provokes you, there are was to do it. Yes, you will be told that you are a "fool" and an "idiot" and you are going respond with a "threat," should not let you back. This what you must do if you want to come back: show us that you understand this: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me? Do you understand? --Ludvikus (talk)

From the leading news publishers - [23] [24]-- (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)-- (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[25]-- (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is the English language encyclopedia. And Wikipedia was "invented" and created here, in the United States. We there are committed to Freedom of the Press. It's shown User:Gaunkars of Goa is involved in a political dispute. See the links above to outside Web online "newspaper" articles. Wikipedia should not deprive this person of his Freedom of speech. Wikipedia should only be interested in this person's ability to follow its rules. If one doesn't agree with his writings at Wikipedia, there are ways to oppose him. Wikipedia should make a special effort to make sure that he was not Blocked from Wikipedia because of his political activities. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. "Freedom of speech"? Yes, the US government may not restrict freedom of speech. However, this does not require any organization to provide a platform for speech that organization does not want to provide. We're quite able to prevent editors from attempting to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox, and we do so regularly; it's one of our core policies, specifically to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a battleground. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misconception that is pointed out by Jpgordon. There is only selective freedom of speech in the United States. There is supposed to be freedom from being charged with a crime for speaking out in a public situation. However, employers can legally restrict speech at work. Schools can restrict speech in schools. Shopping malls can do so, too. If you whistleblow, you can be fired with the exception of public employees exposing corruption and that type of speech. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree 100% on that, Jp. I'm just wondering if he had an opponent - User:Deepak D'Souza - who wants to promote his own POV. I admit I haven't at all read that looooong complaint of his. I've asked if this user was on board only since February 2009. Maybe he can learn to keep his "soap box" safely locked away. I understand he was blocked because "his brother" used another account. I don't know when his "soap box" came into play. But it's my experience bringing one's "soap box" into play at Wikipedia is common - but those who do are often quite capable of hiding that fact. I imagine that he's claiming that his opponent here wishes him not to be un-blocked because of his own "soap box" issues. I'm only asking - I do not know the situation. Or maybe I do not know WP policy on that. Are you saying, Jp, that he has proven that he's got an "ax to grind" and therefore he should not return? What if he could show that his personal views will not cause ANY disruption at Wikipedia. Wouldn't that be sufficient to un-block him? Thanks, Jp. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between soapboxing (an act) and bias (a mindset). There's plenty of bias on Wikipedia, and everyone, as a whole, will always have some sort of bias, including myself. Having an "axe to grind" over a particular topic, however, is exactly what we're talking about when we say Wikipedia is not a battleground and not a soapbox. Put another way, Wikipedia is not a place to grind one's axe. Instead, it's a place to look at the various axes objectively, place them on display in a rational way, and show where we got them from. We might disagree on how to display them or even what axes should be displayed, but we don't grind a specific axe into the reader's head as the best and/or only axe. Furthermore, his personal views have already caused disruption at Wikipedia— he's been shouting them from a soapbox. --slakr^\ talk / 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great explanation - hope he reads it. And he has to STOP that. But is he a Novice - has he been here only since February 2009? If so, would WP:Probation instead be more appropriate - for a time? How about not letting him edit Goa articles? And if he demonstrates he can follow Wiki police his Restriction would be lifted. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think I could recognize if he were to get on his "soap box" and let him know, so he could learn. I'm willing to WP:Watch him, or Click my mywatchlist. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus,perhaps you should take some time to read before posting such long messages. You have wrongly assumed that he was blocked for sockpuppetry. He was blocked for disruptive behaviour (et. al). The sockpupetry complaint came after he was blocked and he decided to bring back his brother from hibernation to support his viewpoint after two unsuccessful unblock requests. And as for that "freedom of speech" thing: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a democracy. Before hypothesizing that I may be protecting "my POV", have you even bothered to read through his so-called references to see if they actually match his claims? Yet, you have the cheek to suggest that I may be pushing my POV! --Deepak D'Souza 18:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you, User:Deepak D'Souza of anything. And I admitted I haven't read or studies his case. But his posts with links here indicate he's been the subject of newspaper articles. At the same time I strongly disagree with the general use of the term 'disruption." FUI, I'm so labelled. And just for that, you could now accuse me of being a "disruptor." I'm only raising points to be considered. That's all. I'm neutral. I don't know whose the "disruptor." But it's apparently true that he's been here only since February 2009. And you appear to be the party around which the alleged "disruption" is shrouded. So you I thing are not sufficiently neutral. Also, from your statements here, it looks like there may also be a Content dispute which degenerate - and over a Controversial issue. I'm not an Administrator - so it's not within my power to unblock this person. But I'm one who has been precisely in his shows. Every article I approach with an attempt to edit it in Good faith, I find the possibility of being labelled a "disruptor" - just because of my ignorance of Wiki Culture. In fact I learned one valuable lesson from one of the very few Administrators I've learned to respect (even if I don't agree with some things he does). But he said to me something like this: "I know you know your stuff, but you don't know how Wikipedia works." Maybe that's true of this person too. So I'm willing to check on his work for a month. And I'm in an excellent position to do that - because I've learned not to be provoke by Personal Attacks. It's my experience that some editors use personal attacks in order to provoke another editor to respond so stronly, that he gets Block just for responding. So I'm neutral I said before above. I'm only hoping I can give some useful guidance to Administrators as to what to look for and consider. Best to you, my fellow Wikipedian. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: I also noticed that you appear to be both from India(right)? So is possible that you two have each brought over your political nationalist battles to Wikipedia? I'm only asking?

--Ludvikus (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is between me and Ludvikus and I dont want to use GoGs talk page for communicating with another user, I have replied to Ludvius on his talk page. [26] --Deepak D'Souza 05:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just noticed that this Blocked user has made a Promise which shows a clear understanding of Wiki policy, rules, & procedures. Whether his promise will be kept, is something none of us knows. But since no one has denied my observation that he's only been a Wikipedian since February 2009, I therefore Strongly recommend that he be forgiven for his errors, and be given another chance to be of great benefit to Wikipedia particularly in view of the fact that he appears to be highly motivated. Therefore, he will clearly have a great motive not to violate any such regulations in the future. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaunkars of Goa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I assure to abide by wikipedia policies in the future;

1. (a) No threats against other users
2. (b) No personal attacks
3. (c) I will limit myself to using a single account User: Gaunkars of Goa
4. (d) I will not use my other account User:Goa.goa, the same may be deleted.

Decline reason:

See the section below called '#Declining this unblock request'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Gaunkars for agreeing to the initial requirements that I recommended earlier. Having seen the comments by others about soapboxing, and having looked at a few of Gaunkars' edits, I confess that I have no enthusiasm for an unblock at this time. Since his interest in Wikipedia seems limited to the promotion of his favored causes, and he gives the impression of being angry about many things, I don't see him being a net positive for Wikipedia. I do not support an unblock. A good summary of his attitude to editing here may be the line he wrote above:

Dear Friend, Following is true history of Goa, rest is all misleading. Who will understand Goa better than its indigenous people?

So: trust him, he is indigenous, he is correct, the rest is all misleading. I don't think his attitude fits with Wikipedia policy. See also his appeal to Jimmy Wales (on October 1) that he is being mistreated: User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 51#Grievance:

Just to let you know that all is not well on wikipedia. Almost all senior editors have started acting like autocrats and dictators. Many genuine facts are just not being considered for discussion, and are unreasonably termed as 'soapbox' or POV, and deleted.

I think he is referring to the block reviewers here as 'autocrats and dictators.' That suggests to me that he is quite unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy regarding soapboxing and POV. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(1): But Gaunkars has just recited his complete understanding of the rules of wikipedia in the above request. So its extremely wrong not to give him a chance to prove himself. Besides, there's another option - Restrict him from the "Goa" articles where he allegedly stands on his soap box.

Comment(2): It makes no sense to Block this user for complaining to Jimbo - he's the ultimate administrator to go to. It's also an effective insult to Jimbo even to suggest that writing to him will cause a Disruption. Jimbo is probably far to bussy to pay any attention to such complaints (unfortunately). There's no rule against complaining to Jimbo - or is there, and I missed it? Besides, are Administrators using such a rule just to protect themselves? Clearly, writing to Jimbo that "all is not well" should be protected by a whistleblower Wiki rule. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. It would be another matter if GoG had made some useful edits and got into a content dispute in the process. No, from his very first edit he has been advocating a cause.
2. When I tried to help him make a useful contribution to the Goa page he refused saying that "he did not want to leave out anything" which basically meant that he wanted to advocate his "255 independent countries" theory. His last message was to ask readers to take a look at his coatrack page which "has a wealth of information for the ignorant". See Talk:Goa#Mention_of_Comunidades
3. GoG still refuses to admit he is Ad1970india despite the obviously similar language and style.
4. GoG has tried to mislead editors by misinterpreting the UN Security council meeting no 988 as a resolution condemning India: [27] he says that India's annexation of Goa was "proclaimed as illegal by the security council" There are three misleading attempts here 1) a meeting has been misrepresented as a resolution. 2) the statement gives an impression that the resolution was adopted, which is false. The resolution was vetoed. 3) India had not annexed Goa at the time the meeting took place. The meeting took place at 8:45 PM (new york) on 18 December 1961. The surrender was signed at 8:30 PM on 19th December . The official law incorporating Goa was passed on 27 March 1962 and was made retrospective to 20th Dec 1961. --Deepak D'Souza 07:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Out of almost complete ignorance, I ask you this: 1) Are you both from India, and 2) Does a Revolutionary movement exist seeking Goa's independence from India? --Ludvikus (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: In an article titled "India, The Aggressor", The New York Times on 19 December 1961, stated "With his invasion of Goa Prime Minister Nehru has done irreparable damage to India's good name and to the principles of international morality." [28] New York Times, Page 32, 19th December 1961. Is this really a dispute between India and Goa with "Goa" again being "defeated" by "India" again - so to speak? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this has any bearing on the block. But let me clarify your misconception. India did attack "Goa" but the target of the attack was not the people of Goa but the Portuguese colonial administration.It was India v/s Portugal, not India v/s Goa. India did not see itself as "attacking Goa" but "liberating Goa" and uniting it into the motherland. India did not "defeat Goa", it defeated the Portuguese. You can read more about it at Invasion of Goa and Goa liberation movement. Yes we are both from India. And before you can ask: GoG is Goan; I am not. Please don't post any more such questions unless you can give a valid reason why they matter in the unblock decision.--Deepak D'Souza 10:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. That's extremely helpful. Now tell us all this: Are you both of different political opinions? You seem to love India, are proud of it's history, etc. How about your Wiki colleague from Goa (right) who is currently blocked? Does he feel the same as you? Or has he been writing with more emphasis on Goa? Could you say that he's a sectionalist, meaning that he loves Goa more than you? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: I'm quite convinced now that one of the disputants is an Indian nationalist while the other is a sectionalist from Goa, which is now a part of India proper, and that both possibly engaged in a revolutionary struggle here at Wikipedia. Therefore, the recommendation of User:Deepak D'Souza that User:Gaunkars of Goa Block should continue, is baseless, without foundation, made in retaliation, and without credibility. User:Gaunkars of Goa's Block ought to be terminated --Ludvikus (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with this characterization of User:Deepak D'Souza, you are in violation of the agreement by which your two year block was curtailed: specifically, you said I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Wikipedia which would lead to a block. However, you are now engaging in what constitutes attacks on another user; your suggestions that Deepak has acted improperly are out of line, and continuing along this line, as you have, has put your continued presence on Wikipedia seriously in doubt. I'm not going to engage in a long conversation with you, or, indeed, any conversation; rather, I'm strongly suggesting that you desist from attempting to engage in block discussions and the like; it is clearly outside of your skill set. If you haven't angered Deepak to the point where he wants to enter into dispute resolution with you, you're quite lucky to have picked a target who is slow to rile. Any continued activity of this sort will result in your status being brought up again on AN/I. Take this as a gentle word of warning. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you load and clear, Jp. I appreciate very much your advising me of the situation. Accordingly, I'm dropping the matter immediately. I will no longer participate here. Thanks JP for informing me of the situation. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of Deepavali (sort of Indian Christmas, not quite) let us try not to argue. The position that I have taken is that I welcome a resource for Goa references, which is why I do not favor page protection of this page. As far as the other matters, I have not researched exactly what happened. I do encourage polite discussion. Try to be kind to each other!

In observance of Deepavli, I may cease to edit for approximately 1-2 weeks or do so sporadically. Happy Deepavali தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்கள் Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid keeping Gaunkars of Goa from not knowing whether he will continue to have a prison term of life, perhaps we could focus on solutions? There is something called brainstorming. That is when you think of ideas and are not afraid to say them for fear of criticism. Naturally, some ideas will be bad ideas but, by not being afraid, there won't be ideas not mentioned. Here are some brainstorming...

1. having an advisor work with Gaunkers.

2. having a fixed date for unblock.

3. 2 week topic ban for all editors who have edited a certain article with no exceptions, not even editors who fixed a grammatical error.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I view Gaunkars' editing record here as so questionable that I don't think an on-Wikipedia trial of his willingness to reform is justified. I would be open to having him create a draft of a new article (at least 500 words) on some external website (even Google Docs might serve). The article should be neutral and well-sourced, and conform to all Wikipedia policies. After creating such an article he could post a link to it here on his user talk page. Editors here would review the article to see if there is now a case for unblock. My concern is that he may be unable to edit neutrally in the areas of his personal enthusiasm. This may prevent him from completing the assigned task. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given by me above, and because has only been at Wikipedia since February 2009 while his disputant has been here since December 2006, and because of the dialog which Gaunkars of Goa's opponent left on my Talk page (User talk:Ludvikus I recommend that Gaunkars of Goa be Unblocked. forthwith. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At least two (2) things you must learn:

1. No matter how provoked, insulted, disrupted, confronted, you find yourself to be NEVER respond in kind. If you were a fish, or fisherman, you might understand this as "don;t bite the hook. OK?
2. NEVER appear to be standing on a soap box. In other words, this is not the place to promote your cause. The way to do that is for you always to have a solid Reference or Source for your position. You personal opinion or WP:Original research, has no place at Wikipedia. You must always be prepared to produce a reputable or notable source for you views. OK?

• Comment: I've read that since 2005, Goa has been in a state of political upheaval. That suggests there may be rebellion or revolution in Goa. Do you have access to published, scholarly, or notable references which are consistent with your points of view? Or are you all alone in your views?

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your dispute concerning the fact that Goa is not present on that "United Nations" list. Do you have access any published document, record(s), or knowledge of a historical even in which the UN was challenged for its failure to include Goa on said list, or is that merely your own personal desire based only on your love for Goa? Either way, you must show that understand, accept, and willing to abide be these requirements of Wikipedia.

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends,

This is going nowhere, I don’t mind being blocked temporarily, but only if you assure to put the articles right. If you refer to my first discussion on the talk page of India, you will see that my objection was on the geographical area of Goa which is shown as 3,702 sq.km which is totally false. For your kind information Govt. of Goa does not own any land, all land belongs to Comunidades of Goa and other indigenous people, the Govt. of Goa literally begs for land every time it needs, needless to mention that it is operating fraudulently ( Ref: Adv. Andre A Pereira : ‘Ruling Goa by Fraud’, 2009. Published by: New Age Society. )

I want wikipedia editors to immediately provide verifiable resources [proof] for the following in support of the Goa article on wikipedia based on its policies; The following are Constitutional requirements [obligations] in forming any new state; 1. Instrument of accession. 2. State land tenure contract/agreement with the absolute owners. 3. Plebiscite [Self-determination] of the people.

Only with the above proofs your article will have legal standing on wikipedia, not otherwise.

An eye opener for all [common sense]: India signed a treaty with Portugal as regards transfer of sovereignty. By the very signing of the treaty India proved that the territory never belonged to her, and made a greater fool of herself by signing the treaty with Portugal when the territory never belonged to Portugal, Goa being declared a non self-governing territory under Portuguese administration. Hence the treaty in question is legally null and void. It was the most criminal game played by two nations along with the United Nations, an injustice of the highest order. Goa, to this day, remains a controversial [debatable] case study in international law.-- (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you continue to use this page as a soapbox so I've taken away this privilege. Regards, --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now - by the above posting - that this editor has no understanding of how Wikipedia works - namely by Consensus. I particularly apologize to User:Jpgordon, who informed us all that this user wants to use Wikipedia as his soap box. And I see now that Jpgordan was correct. Therefore, I withdraw my former tentative support for this user to be unblocked. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Declining Gaunkars of Goa unblock request. If Gaunkars wants further consideration of his unblock, he can send mail to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. More info at WP:Guide to appealing blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator who claims 30,000 edits has ordered me to cease writing on your user talk page. I will comply. Others who know of good references about Goa, please feel free to contact me. This is the quote that I received:

please back off NOW. And leave this area to those who have experience in it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suomi_Finland_2009"

As background information for those reading this page, I have always been disturbed at the accusation of threats. If true, this is improper behavior that can reasonably result in a block or ban. However, I have not researched if threats were made. What I have done was to express my interest in references about Goa (Wikipedia lingo=reliable sources) about as well as explain to Gaunkars how to act in Wikipedia.

Perhaps you could try not think about Wikipedia until January 1, 2010 at the earliest. Despite this happening, I hope you have a Happy Deepavali.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]