User talk:Kathanar/Archive 1

Close to 3rr violation on Kancha Ilaiah

You have come cloase to the 3-revert rule on Kancha Ilaiah. This is a warning. Persistence will result in reporting for admin action.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Did not realize these rules, though if this is true User:Hkelkar violated this also. --Kathanar 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings

Do NOT remove warnings from your talk page, it makes it look like you have something to hide and is considered vandalism. Ben W Bell talk 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk page, but still don't remove warnings. Ben W Bell talk 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Okay. I've reviewed your edits, and the alterations other users have made to those edits. Some I think are fine, and some not so much, on both parties sides. If you are going to make a change that would fundamentally alter the perception and interpretation of a statement or an article can you please discuss it on the relevant article's talk page beforehand and see if anyone objects. This is what the talk pages are for after all, and try not to get engaged in an revert war over alterations. If you wish to make such changes, make sure you have some references to quote to back them up as Wikipedia only ultimately accepts facts that are Verifiable. Thank you. Ben W Bell talk 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks:reporting content dispute as vandalism

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

The edit summary of this diff is unacceptable as you have attacked me personally instead of my content. Would you like to be blocked?

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&diff=78547667&oldid=78547477

Hkelkar 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Insult me again and I will file a complaint against you.Hkelkar 18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hkelkar IF you continue to attack and harass me and make threats, you will be one to be blocked from wikipedia, I'll go ahead and work on that. I consider this a personal attack and defamatory, there will be consequences--Kathanar 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. there will be consequences all right.Hkelkar 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Christian???

In fact, if you look at my edits to Persecution of Christians you will see that I am not an anti-Christian at all, just anti-Fundamentalist-Christian. This entire section Persecution of Christians#Persecution of Christians in Pakistan was created and edited by me only.Hkelkar 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&diff=77902818&oldid=77768717

Hkelkar 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your writings are also anti-muslim and and anti-pakistan, you just use one to justify the other when it suits you. If you were anti-fundamentalist christian, this is you admiting to this label, you seem to paint a broad stroke in who you label as such. You might as well say you're writings and editing are anti-christian--Kathanar 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Request

As Coordinator of the AMA, I am currently up to my eyeballs in fielding requests at the moment so I, unfortunately, will not be able to take your case, personally. However, I strongly suggest that you file a request on our AMA Requests for Assistance page, and the first Advocate who is available will be able to help you ASAP. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT!!!!

Right you two, I am posting this message to both your pages. STOP IT!!! You are both acting like kids in a playground. Now I don't know anything about the topics under discussion but both your actions are becoming disruptive to Wikipedia. Now I've been very busy with other things these last couple of days so I haven't been able to intervene as was probably needed. I would like to point out a couple of things to you.

Go and read WP:Vandalism. People making edits you don't necessarily agree with isn't the same as vandalism, it is a content dispute. Warning each other for vandalism for doing and undoing each others edits is disruptive and just plain wrong.
There are talk pages attached to every single article in Wikipedia. There are talk pages for specific areas and projects within Wikipedia. Content disputes and differing ideas should be discussed on these pages. I note there has been a whole lot of reverting, vandalism warnings back and forth and such like, but very little in the way of attempting to actually talk to each other. Use the pages. Don't make more than one revert without discussing your differences, one person't vandalism is another's good faith edit.
Stop being so diruptive. My talk page, and every other talk page, are not areas for you to attack one another and try to outdo each other. Reading through my talk page it reads like two kids coming to mother and saying "he did this" and "he did that". Please stop it.
POV. Please read the Wikipedia article WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia. Your personal views and opinions should be irrelevant to the maintenance of a neutral encyclopaedia. If you feel really strongly one way or another on a particular subject, then you probably really shouldn't be editing it as your bias will come through.

So in closing, what you two have is a content dispute. Who is right, I really don't know as I'm not au fait with the topics. What I do know is it isn't deliberate vandalism so stop with the vandalism warnings. If either of you reverts and puts a warning of vandalism on the other users page for what would seem to others to be a good faith edit, I'll consider a temporary block on that person for disruptive behaviour. Also skirting close to the WP:3RR may also result in a temporary block for undermining the spirit of the policy if not the letter of it. So please, discuss your differences, use the talk pages constructively and talk calmly. If you see an edit that gets your blood up and you have to strike out against it, turn your computer off for a few hours, go away and do something relaxing and calm down. You know what they say "edit in haste, repent in error", which reminds me of the time an email annoyed me at work and I accidentally hit Reply To All and didn't realise the CEO and company Board were included in the reply list, but that's another story. Thank you. Ben W Bell talk 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]