User talk:Thegreyanomaly

Hello Thegreyanomaly, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox  ^{T C E} 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Thegreyanomaly the article "Indian Buddhist Movement" is about Religious movement which is growing in India slowly since last 50 years. If you are anti-Buddhist we certainly don't have any objection about your religion. You can be a Brahmin-Hindu if you are a priest by profession in any temple otherwise you are a Shudra-Hindu because all non-priest i.e. non-Brahmins are SHUDRA in Hindu Religion. In Kali Yuga Hindus have only two Varna as per the religious philosophy of Hindus. If you are from India then you might be knowing that Buddhism in India was totally killed. Some blame Brahmins Or some blame Muslims for that, it is a vast topic of study. I don't want to blame anybody. Hindu Castiesm and Hindu Untouchability became very strong after fall of Buddhism in Indian sub-continent and before British came to India. Education to all non-Brahmins was banned and the rigid Hindu Religious laws made by Brahmins like Manusmriti, VishnuSmriti and other DharmaShastras became the laws to govern the non-Muslim society.

British gave education for all and broke the anti-Human Hindu Laws. After Independence Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India. He also established "Buddhist Society of India" certainly NOT Navayana Society! So there is no meaning branding the movement as Navayana. Because the founder of India's Buddhist Revival Movement which is certainly against Hindu Casteism and injustice that Hindus are doing since hundreds of years called his movement as Buddhist Movement. Also Dr. Ambedkar said that 'He will convert whole India back to Buddhism' but he was killed just within 6 weeks after his conversion to Buddhism. Some people blamed Brahmins for his death. It is not sure how he died. I dont want to blame anybody. So you can discuss current Buddhist Developments in the article "Indian Buddhist Movement". About Hindu Caste and related things you better write to Hindu Articles Or Caste Related to Articles. If Navayana is a anto-caste publication then you should put that link in Caste Related article.

In India legal system we have Hindus, Muslims, Christens and BUDDHIST as different religion. Expecially our 2001 cencus gives more details about different religions population. We dont have any 'Navayana Buddhist' in whole India neither it is recognized legally anywhere. Officially we have around 1% Buddhists in India. This population unofficially can be 4% also because thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. But lets take official figures.

Caste is a problem of Hindus certainly not the problem of Buddhists. Be a contributor to wikipedia but don't just try to vandalise different articles. Dhammafriend 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some blame people who think the caste system is Hindu s opposed to Indian. Sadly Muslim castes (Sayyad - high, Bhangi, etc - low) cannot even be in the same graveyard. At least Hindus ashes all flow in the Ganges.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man. I'd like to help you in any dispute resolution process by participating in it. If you'd like to initiate a mediation cabal or an RfC/RfA I'm fully game. Please inform me if you do. This is regarding Bodhidhamma and Truthlover's borderline racist POV pushing on Indian Buddhist Movement. Thanks and have a nice day.Hkelkar 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please verify the latest anon edits to the Indian Buddhist Movement as of now? They seem to be unsourced and I'd like your verification if that's ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Buddhist_Movement&diff=78614384&oldid=78613985

I mean the bit about Taiwanese collaboration (I may have heard something about this so am inclined to believe it, but could you check plz).Hkelkar 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar you reverted the Indian Buddhist Movement article even though I gave links and proofs for the contents. One more thing BodhiDhamma is my brother in USA so we are not like you people because we are bold and truth speaking people. Don't vandalise the article without proper understanding. Study the present status. Dhammafriend 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to look at it. User:Yeditor has removed the navayana stuff. I have had trouble with his tendentious edits before.Hkelkar 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar This shows you both are more interested in Vandalising the Indian Buddhist Movement article again and again. Be positive. Come forward for open debate. I have told you people many times that if you want to debate face to face we can arrange our Buddhist friends meeting with you. So be open minded and know the truth about Indian Buddhist Movement Dhammafriend 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thegreyanomaly your edits are very helpful and informative. Please look more in the so-called Indian Buddhist Movement. Thanks. Holybrahmin 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we expand the portal? Holybrahmin 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm writing to you because I noticed that you contributed to the article and talk section of "Indian Buddhist Movement". I saw the article on the RFC page, then read the article and the talk page. I posted a lengthy analysis of the article on it's talk page and have watched it since.

I would like to invite you to read my analysis and post your opinion. This is a noteworthy topic, but it's currently incomplete and needs reorganization. The effort to improve this article has boiled down to two editors, dhammafriend and hkelkar, who are both engaging in edit wars and attacks on one another. There has been no substantial progress on this article since I first came upon it, so I'm hoping that you and other folks can come back an engage in a refocusing.

I greatly appreciate in advance anything you have to offer.

Sincerely, NinzEliza 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gears of War Criticism, please see my comments in Talk:Gears of War#Criticism. --Rodzilla 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pushing CRAPPY IndoPOV. It is you who refuse to discuss on the Talk Page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.91 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Kindly note that since 1914, when India still had not gained independence, the Tibetans has accepted its subordination to China:

• "It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory."[Point 1, Appendix, Simla Convention, signed by ROC, DL and UK/India]

For wikipedia, pls stop making factually-inaccurate statement.--218.102.23.90 06:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've blocked you for breaking the three revert rule on the article South Asia. In addition, edit summaries such as this [3] unnecessarily escalate tensions, and I ask you to refrain from edit warring and making comments like that after your block is up. dvdrw 08:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When does my block end Thegreyanomaly 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm to my request I realized 3RR blocks are 24-hours Thegreyanomaly 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 24 hours since my last revert, but I cannot edit. The only edits I made were continual edits on this talk page, so I could view UTC time and see how much longer my block would last Thegreyanomaly 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 71.9.38.100 lifted or expired. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bioquetzalmon.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Biostegomon.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Biothunderbirmon.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remember to you that when contributing to a controversial page such as this one you must always remember to be entirely sure and have a proper source for your edit, because in this cases an unsourced edit has a chance of ending in a whole edit war, just a friendly reminder -happy editing-Dark Dragon Flame 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're more in danger of violating 3RR than I am. I reverted the POV tag once, and your statement twice. 3RR requires reverting the same info more than three times. You have now made three reverts on the same info. One more and you violate 3RR. I don't say this out of animosity; I just want to be fair, to you and me. Ward3001 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to discuss, but actually, like you, I'm in agreement with Cfortunato's latest edit. If it stays that way I see no need for discussion of that paragraph at this point. Ward3001 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Ok then. No discussion necessary Thegreyanomaly 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. Since the disagreement is resolved I think you should request that the page be unprotected. (And I have no plans to change the article as it is now.) Secondly, your request for protection states that "Christians have been continually citing non-statistical authorities..." How do you know if someone is a Christian? I reverted some of your edits. Do you know whether I am or am not a Christian? Please explain. I understand your request for protection, and even your disagreements with other editors. But don't make statements about other editors' religious affiliation if you don't know anything about it. It violates Wikipedia policy. And THAT is something that I will take to an administrator if necessary. Thank you. Ward3001 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to me whom specifically you targeted in your statement about "Christians." My point is that you made statements on Wikipedia about any editor's religious affiliation without knowledge of it. In effect, you were assuming that editor(s) were adding, deleting, reverting, or making other changes because they are Christian. I think that is the basis for some (but not all) of your misunderstanding editors' intentions in their edits. I make no assumptions about an editor's religious beliefs unless the editor makes those beliefs known to me. I do not change an article based on an editor's religous beliefs. I would have no knowledge of your religious beliefs except that it was stated in your comment on Cfortunato's talk page. I reverted some of your edits because I disagreed with what you were saying, not because of your religious beliefs. I completely respect your right to disagree with any editor. But I think we could make more progress in coming to agreement on some of our differences if you did not assume that those who disagree with you are Christians and are making their edits because they are Christians. Ward3001 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never looked at your userboxes and never felt the need to do so, because your religious affiliation is irrelevant to whether I agree or disagree with you edits. I suspect that's the case with most editors, whether they agree or disagree with you or me. I begin by assuming good faith that an editor makes changes to the article because they believe it improves the accuracy of the article, not because they are waging a religious war. Most of the edits in the article are not a battle of Christians against atheists (or any other religious viewpoint). Apparently you feel a need to find out if an editor is Christian, and then you seem to assume that the religion of your "opponent" is what motivates their edits. And, in my opinion, THAT is the crux of much of your conflict with other editors. Please make your edits as you feel the need, but don't frame the conflicts as the Christians versus you. Thanks. Ward3001 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, I did not say or even imply that you are anti-Christian. I simply said that you seem to be assuming (based on your sweeping generalization that Christians are making some of the edits, and your description of finding out that your "opponents" are Christians) that those who disagree with you are doing so because they are Christian. Secondly, if it's fair to say that you keep your "atheistic and Buddhist beliefs out of" your edits, it's only fair to say that Christians or a person of any religion can keep his/her religious beliefs out of their edits. I quite disagree with your statement that "being Christian ... will influence an individual to being, at some level, against this documentary." I have no difficulty accepting that Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoist, Druids or anyone is capable of making edits for or against the documentary without regard to their personal religious convictions. Do you think you are the only person who can make unbiased edits without being influenced by personal religious beliefs? Ward3001 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly entitled to respond to your statements on my talk page; you have no obligation to read or respond to what I write. If you don't want me to respond, then don't write anything on my talk page. Your logic is flawed: I did not imply that you make bad faith edits; I said that I assume others edit with good faith. Ward3001 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding link to college board if you read the pdf, diamond bar high is listed there as an example of a large high performing school

the pdf linked to college board does include dbhs read through the pdf, don't skim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igeoffi (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Igeoffi 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update: go to page 24 of the 2007 ap report to the nation from the college board link it clearly mentions diamond bar high as an exemplary ap calc ab program did you read the pdf before making claims that there was no mention of dbhs? Igeoffi 06:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How r u? --Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, cozu know gujarati and you are the first person to use userbox created by me!!!! So, thanks again...--Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits apear to be OR unless they're sourced. Corvus cornix 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this [4] allow me to give him/her a last vandalism warning? Thegreyanomaly 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can give a final warning at any point, dependent upon the severity of the vandalism encountered. The diff linked to AIV doesn't help me very much. If you have a diff that demonstrates vandalism after several warnings on the editors' Talk page then you can use that as evidence for a final warning tag. AIV is, I believe, for the reporting of vandals who continue on their reckless course past a final warning. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a question. Your userboxes state that you are both a Buddist and an atheist. Just wondering, how this is possible? Thanks for answering (I hope), C0N6R355^talk_contribs 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fall Program for Freshmen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jauerback 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide more sources. However, lets keep in mind that I am from Kabul and you are an Indian with Pan-Indianism or Pan-South Asian ideology. -- Behnam 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indosphere" is a poorly cited concept, unused in academia or popular culture. You'd have to really beef up the main article before papering WP with it. Also, your change has been deleted from Indonesia before, so please use the talk page before adding it again. Cheers, --Smilo Don 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if we allowed every template created from a geographical permutation, we'd have 40 templates on the Indonesia and other country articles. It really doesn't provide that much value - just more clutter - "death by templates". sorry. --Merbabu 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making abrupt and unwarranted changes to the article without getting a reasonable consensus in the discussion. Moreover, when the matter is still questioned by various Wikipedia users like myself, you for some odd reason, decided to remove the POV tag.Scythian1 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the template. Gandhara, which is the historically viewed name of Eastern Afghanistan, has been inserted in lieu of Afghanistan. Best Regards Scythian1 01:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change to Gandhara. I, in good faith, put Gandhara to make this matter settled. However you abruptly changed it back to Afghanistan without even discussing the matter in the talk section of the template. Scythian1 02:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that Behnam did erroneously changed it. I will leave him a message as I am assuredly under the view that he may have not understood the matter fully. Though I highly appreciate your open-mindedness. Best regards Scythian1 02:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikiproject Digimon, we are about to undergo a large project and we wish to see how many people wish to help and contribute. If you wish to help please sign here. Trainra 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the template "Asian Capitals" consists of a double listing of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul. That seems rather rhetorical in nature, and instead should involve only a single listing under one geographic region, with a notation stating that it is sometimes considered a part of another geographic region. In the case of Afghanistan, the consensus on Wikipedia seems to be that it belongs within the realm of Central Asia, and is only sometimes referred to as geographically South Asian in passing by various English language news services. Inclusion of Afghanistan within the realm of South Asia goes against academic views on the subject, and in fact in many cases reflects a tenancy towards irredentism. As a result of this clear dispute, I am going to request an RFC on this matter. Atari400 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the fourth one I provided the source for Afghani. Please see talk page. Thanks. -- Behnam 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither The American Heritage® Dictionary nor Princeton's wordnet lists them as synonyms. It is dictionary.com that lists them as synonyms. And even if they had the exact meaning, they are still different words and are used and need be mentioned even if Afghan is more common. -- Behnam 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantines were all zealous Christians by c late 6th century and much of the Empire was Christian already before Rome fell in c 480 AD. Polytheism was struck a severe blow by Theodosius ITourskin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Byzantine Empire did not consist of the western proportions for very long. In any case its the official religion that is stated. The Empire allowed Jews, Muslims and others to worship, but these were not the Empire's official religion. Catholics worshipped at Constantinople but Roman Catholicism was not the official religion. Pagans may have worshipped in the countryside in secret. Again, not an official religion. The Head of State determines the religion and the Byzantine Emperor, being the Head of state, determined it to be Orthodox Christianity. Tourskin (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept only cited facts. As of yet, you have given no sources to show that Afghanistan or Baluchistan belong to your notion of an "Indosphere", or a "Greater India". I am sorry, but you seem to espouse an Indian nationalistic viewpoint that as of yet, is not backed up with sources. After all, what makes Baluchistan or Afghanistan part of an Indosphere/Greater India, exactly. That has not even been addressed. More importantly, why do you even feel the need for such an inclusion? Atari400 09:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also point out that Balochistan (region) is neither a country nor a territory. Each of the other countries and territories in that template is a recognised political entity but you will have a hard time proving Balochistan region is even a territory. Green Giant (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you pointed to is only for the infobox. Nothing else. Also, this is a disambiguation page. You should look into what the purpose of a disambiguation page is (link]). CanadianAnthropologist (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous.

Go and take a look at Talk:Tibet/Archive_5#South_Asia, it is YOU who failed to convince all other editors on accepting Tibet forming part of S. Asia. And all those useless sources are hardly GEOPOLITICAL.

On Talk:South Asia I see that another editor has warned you half a year ago he/she would remove those crappy and offtopic citations unless you show us some genuines GEOPOLITICAL sources, and you FAILED.

It's a GEOPOLITICAL topic, those "language center/cultural centers"...blarblarblar are not authoritative on this matter and thus OFF-TOPIC. (Even if it's worth mentioning, please do it only as "Reference")

I have monitored this pages and your POV-pushing for years, so don't childishly think that we dont know it. You are the one who must be warned.

Hands off!

--210.0.212.59 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! There is no use sending me this. John Hill and I have proved that you push lies on the article. And I will unquestionably present this case to (other) administrator--210.0.212.59 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the first time you edit in Wikipedia??? Every editor knows that all disputed edits/citations cannot be added on the main article unless consensus has been reached with other editors. Can't you read simple english? --210.0.212.59 (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your report to AIV because AIV is only for simple vandalism. Edit wars should ideally be settled by communicating on talk pages; I know that the user hasn't exactly been civil, and will leave a note on their talk page about that. If a 3RR conflict does arise from this, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR instead. Thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the editor's contributions, it seems they're bent on having their way; I'll have one more word with them, and if they continue to edit war, then yes, you may report them to the 3RR noticeboard. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Tibet^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

I have recently filed a request to have the page moved so that 'the Apostate' will be removed. If you support (or oppose) the removal of this descriptor, please voice your opinion at Talk:Julian the Apostate Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been checking in to Wikipedia so much lately and apparently the poll is closed. Although I don't have a strong opinion on this I do think you are right. I'm frequently disappointed at how much bias and prejudice gets preserved in Wikipedia (this is not the most egregious example but still ...). --Mcorazao (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo the above comment in all regards. Left a comment as requested. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries of the Indosphere has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Victor12 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guy!

I think you may be interested in this. Please add this article to your watchlist as soon as possible.

Thank you so much and best wishes to you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How are you? --Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so im not the only anomly on wikipedia well besides my little brother but thats not the point .. nice to meet ya.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has proposed a move back to the original title of this article. It would be great to have your input. Please chime in. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barking at people for no reason is rude. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Please see User talk:Longchenpa#User:Littlebutterfly. User:Longchenpa and I are going to start dispute resolution proceedings against User:Littlebutterfly and we thought you might want to join us. Yunfeng (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Good luck on your test. Yunfeng (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LB doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a different perspective and deliberate obscuring and distortion of the facts. And he/she uses the same strategy I used to use against my little brother when I was 9: I'd bug him until I knew he'd hit me, and then I'd run to mom and say, "He hit me!" Longchenpa (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up. Gimme danger has enlisted Littlebutterfly's help in improving the History of Tibet article to Good Article status. I raised my concerns about this with Gimme danger, who immediately erased them from his talk page. Longchenpa (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Houesse (talk • contribs) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some checking up on Gimme danger's Wiki Project on Tibet. As far as I've found he has invited:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Littlebutterfly
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tkalsang
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rigsreco
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samuraidude123

So far. Although I haven't looked earlier that April 14. I've informed Gimme danger that I would feel more comfortable if he had included any of the Tibet editors in his invitations. I'm going through the edit histories to see what's going on here. Longchenpa (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You're at 4RR OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

   I noticed that you removed the dubious tag from Indian American's language infobox.  

I read the citation See page 4, and nowhere does it say that Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati, are the three most common languages spoken by Indian American's in that order, which is what the Wikipedia article had said.

It merely says that amongst the [[Official languages of India] that aren't English, Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati have the most number of native speakers resident in the United States of America.

Urdu, and to a lesser extent Gujarati, are not exclusively spoken by Indian American's, Urdu being the official language of Pakistan. As such, many Urdu speakers are not likely to identify as Indian American, and would identify as Pakistani American instead.

Thus it is incorrect to refer to those three as the 3 most commonly spoken languages by Indian Americans.

Arun (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should both be listed as Propaganda. --Palming (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TGA. Propaganda, apart from its technical dictionary definition, has a very negative connotation, and as such, whether a given work is propaganda is a matter of opinion. As such, articles should not describe such works as propaganda as a matter of fact, but only as an opinion that is properly attributed to a reliable source, as in the Criticism sections of such films. Describing or categorizing such films as propaganda is a clear violation of WP: NPOV. Please do not place that category in the films again. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning you are close to breaking/have broken, the rule watch out. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly - Hello. I don't think you are following very closely. We are debating on the Talk page. I am also providing permutations of the edits I'm offering to improve the article and bring it into consensus territory. It's not 3RR. This is despite the fact that the discussion on the Talk page is providing no supporting facts or substance and can frankly be summed up by pointing to POV film critiques. I welcome your input in the debate. Regards, --Davidp (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomaly. Please use more descriptive, less charged edit summaries than this. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. A user is allowed to retire and return with a new account, or as an IP, so long as they are not doing so to violate policy. In this case, we should try to protect their privacy. I looked quickly, and did not see any abuse. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see someone taking an interest in the article. Even nicer to see that it's someone exactly my age. Cheers - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue this attack on that former editor's talk page, I will simply request that the page be protected. At this point, your behavior does appear to be out of line, and not in good faith. 71.107.70.47 (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thegreyanomaly's move to restore the content. The user was banned, not retired, and his content restore was not vandalism as you claim. His edits were certainly in line, and in accordance with Wp's policy against banned users. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASS; it is utterly improper to solicit !votes on a poll, and this is one reason votes aren't counted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be childish, Goldstein's description on Sino-Tibetan relation has been cited for long time on wikipedia (See Tibet). If you can read simple English, for your POV accusation please kindly read the exact quotes from Goldstein which I just added:

"While the ancient relationships between Tibet and China are complex and beyond the scope of this study, there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century."[Goldstein, 1989]

and more...

"From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century."[Gernet, Foster & Hartman, 1982]

"In 1751 the organization of the protectorate took its final shape, which it maintained, except for some modifications in 1792, till its end in 1912. The ambans were given rights of control and supervision and since 1792 also a direct participation in the Tibetan government."[Petech, 1972]

And please also note that TAR's status as part of PRC is worldwide accepted.(the term TAR itself is invented by PRC). Since 2007, the Dalai Lama and the TGIE prime minister have clearly state that they let the Himalayan region stay within the Chinese boundary/constitution. Do you want me to show you the quote?

Please also don't make me laugh and look down on you by saying something senseless like "I am UC students b-b-blah". Even if you claim youself as "Yale phd", "Harvard professor", it still means nothing to me as (WARNING) everyone must follow the golden ruleof WP:CITE.

By the way, the 898-page Goldstein account is right on my desk, I have full access to every page of the book, so let me know if you need help.

CAL student? Bah! 219.73.86.234 (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers have been provided on the South Asia article at the very beginning, it is YOU who vandalized and removed all the three sources(MSN Encarta, Gernet J. and Goldstein).

Asking (not "doubting") anyone if he can read simple english is a sign of providing help but not the opposite.

Have a nice day. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raise no quesion on your latest edits on South Asia. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me any example. Nevertheless, two wrongs do not make one right. BTW, on:

"I only mentioned I am a Berkeley student to make it clear that I have access to one of the books in question at the moment"

I would like to correct the misconception telling you that being a CAL student, yes student, would not make one have privilage access to book published by University of Cal Press. University departments and University Press are two diferent legal entities. Oxon students would not have special access to OUP-published dictionary. Please make appropriate edit summary or your behaviour would be regarded as POV-pushing or even vandalism. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have access to the largest library system, and then? Make you a more authoritative on editing South Asia?

I think we Editors should be more mature/professional on editing and should not speak like a spoild kids with those senseless bunchy "reverts" Can't you see how messy the article was 219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So enlight me, what has the largest library system got to do with Goldstein's book and your reverts?219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know there is such a place named Talk page?219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't finished my editing!219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it official Wikipedia editing method? BTW, which citation I have accidentally removed? Tell me.219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on South Asia. You have been blocked for this before on the same article and as such you should know better. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 03:27, 18 July 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

regarding South Asia. An uncivil IP vandal 219.73.86.234 was drastically editing the page, removing much cited content. This user was also wikistalking, following my every move. I was trying to get this guy off my back. He/she was not acting in line with good faith (see mine and his/her talk page). For example, I was trying to make a point that because I am a Berkeley student I have access to the books s/he was citing. These were his/her responses

“

"I only mentioned I am a Berkeley student to make it clear that I have access to one of the books in question at the moment" I would like to correct the misconception telling you that being a CAL student, yes student, would not make one have privilage access to book published by University of Cal Press. University departments and University Press are two diferent legal entities. Oxon students would not have special access to OUP-published dictionary. Please make appropriate edit summary or your behaviour would be regarded as POV-pushing or even vandalism. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC) You have access to the largest library system, and then? Make you a more authoritative on editing South Asia? I think we Editors should be more mature/professional on editing and should not speak like a spoild kids with those senseless bunchy "reverts" Can't you see how messy the article was 219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC) So enlight me, what has the largest library system got to do with Goldstein's book and your reverts?219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Do you know there is such a place named Talk page?219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I still haven't finished my editing!219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC) is it official Wikipedia editing method? BTW, which citation I have accidentally removed? Tell me.219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

”

and here were mine

“

I will fully respond to your comments at a later time within the next week, I am rather busy with summer school and work at the moment. Two things I am going to mention If you can read simple English, for your POV accusation please kindly read the exact quotes from Goldstein which I just added: comments that criticize or question an individual's linguistic abilities go against WP:CIV. Just a friendly reminder. I only mentioned I am a Berkeley student to make it clear that I have access to one of the books in question at the moment. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] also please, when you put quotes on my talk page, or on any page for that matter, please give page numbers so that I and others can read the contextual material around the quote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Asking (not "doubting") anyone if he can read simple english is a sign of providing help but not the opposite. I have seen other IPs on Tibet-related pages say more or less the exact same thing and they were told that they were in violation of WP:CIV. I will respond to your other comments after my midterm on Monday. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Being a Cal student gives me access to one of the world's largest library systems meaning I have access to lots of books regardless who they are published by, that was the point I was trying to make. My point was independent to the fact that the book was published the UC. I meant no insult or condescension in my statement. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] as for WP:CIV, here is the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:210.0.212.59 . Admin User:Master of Puppets said it himself Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] I never said that made be a better scholar at South Asia. You are trying to imply false things and are not acting in line with WP:AFG

”

This user's behavior was despicable and provoking (see our talk pages and above), especially with the large scale wikistalking. I was trying to protect the page from this ip address's vandalism. Initially, when the IP edited the page, they were putting in new sources, but it was very clear to me that for at least one of the sources they were adding, they were adding what they saw as the pro-PRC/anti-Tibetan point of view ignoring the pro-Tibetan text that was on the exact same. I admit I hastily reverted the first time, but they afterwards I edited their reference and added the Tibetan view also depicted in the source in question. After that, this IP started doing away with large amounts of the page with absolutely no consensus for such drastic edits. It now appears that User:Becky Sayles stands on my side that this IP's edits were overly drastic and improper. I have on and off seen IP vandals within this user's range that were also from Hong Kong (219.73.86.234 is from Hong Kong), that have committed such vandal edits to South Asia. This IP was just another one of those and the number of them has been increasing because the 2008 Olympics and Tibet.

Yes I was blocked on South Asia a long time ago, when I was a relatively new user. I had only been on Wikipedia for a bit over six months and I had a distasteful introduction to Wikipedia on Dalit Buddhist movement‎ having to deal with uncivil sockpuppets. It gave me a bad mindset while editing Wikipedia. After my 3RR, I have learned a lot more of how Wikipedia works and how it should be treated since then. I don't that 3RR should count against me right now. Also note, my other block from South Asia was caused by another Hong Kong IP 218.102.23.126 with similar motives. (if you look at their contrib records, they never were banned or blocked and they disappeared right after I was 3RR'd).

I was trying to undo large amount of vandalism committed by this IP (removing large chunks of references should be considered vandalism).

Note: the other party also demanded to see what references they were removing. They easily could have done that had they looked their edit diffs. Their refusal to look at the diffs should not be used to punish me as they are implying on their talk page

Decline reason:

Your request is too long and was not read. See WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  11:32, 18 July 2008 (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.

From looking at the edits the IP was making, I agree they were darastic (and as such they are blocked too), but I would not call them vandalism and as such making revert after revert is really a disruptive way to handle this situation. Tiptoety ^talk 03:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((unblock-auto|1=169.229.83.145|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Thegreyanomaly". The reason given for Thegreyanomaly's block is: "Edit warring: on South Asia".|3=Tiptoety|4=990454))

My block was scheduled to end approx. minute ago. It was 3:24 PST (10:24 UTC) and I got this autoblock... I didn't violate any block rules that I know of. I did not attempt to evade the block. I did not edit Wikipedia articles (other than this talk page) in the last 31 hours Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this a dorm internet connection that I am using. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior block expired, so removed a lingering autoblock (unfortunately, they don't always end at the same time -- it's complicated). Try again? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding those games. As a disambiguation page, it should be limited only to things known as "Clone Wars". The games are generally referred to by their subtitles, "Lightsaber Duels" and "Jedi Alliance", so do not belong on the disambiguation page. Thanks. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are irrelevant. Those two titles are more than clearly disambiguated by their subtitles, they do not need to be linked from the disambiguation page Clone Wars. People looking for them are not likely to be simply typing in "Clone Wars", which is the point of a disambiguation page. They may type in "Clone Wars video game" and the fact that there are three games that could fall under that might justify a disambiguation page there, but the two new games do not belong on Clone Wars, just as all Star Wars video games do not belong on Star Wars (disambiguation). And please do not simply revert me again, if you have any further arguments, keep them here. Thanks. Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have been saying is OR. The two new games are known equally by the title Clone Wars. I am reverting your edits once again and filing an RfC on the page. Google hits are relevant. They show what people mean when they search Clone wars videogame. All three video games show up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Wookiepedia, a SW wiki, depicts the new games on its Clone Wars disambig. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_Wars_(disambiguation)Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"… does not even acknowledge the NCSE as a neutral source."

I'm afraid this is true of a few people lobbying Expelled. I don't understand a willingness to accept deceit to bolster one's belief. I have serious doubts that people who argue against propaganda have read the resources. (sigh)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found your fields of study combination interesting. I attended the last of the Latin schools and had a couple of years, but about all that remains is being able to pick out words here and there.

Jean-François Groff (who worked with Tim Berners-Lee to develop the www) has suggested Latin as an internet lingua franca rather than Esperanto. He argues that it's relatively compact, underpins most Western languages, and is better known than Esperanto.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>Another debate has arose. Your return has been requested. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC

Thank you for notifying me. Could you point me to the page? Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please explain your revert to the article Pakistani Americans, as you left no reasoning. Scythian77 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost two weeks have passed, and I am still waiting for your response to this question. You continue to revert without any discussion. If you continue with this behavior, it may be construed as vandalism. Scythian77 (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting a describtion to your changes. AND, why split the article?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The User:THEunique talk page musta rolled over to you somehow...? Sorry--Tomtom9041 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) AND, why have you been monitoring him?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! The Scythian 07:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as you vandalize azad kashmir with indian propagandist terms such as "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" i will also put this IOK label on all indian kashmir articles kapish dont start nothing there wont be nothing 86.151.125.184 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

am the one keeping things as they were. You are the one entering the POV. Also if you wish to be a serious editor, please register and make an account Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) REPLY: Are you serious you just removed the long standing indian occupied kashmir sentence from Jammu and kashmir and you started adding it to azad kashmir get a grip 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever subcontinental proxy war you are involved in, please help the rest of us WP readers by trying to confine Edit Summaries to their intended use, not to engage in edit fights. The more of what you do you do then the less some people will value anything you write. WP says if you cannot accept changes to your edits (even if spiteful or false or whatever) then do not edit.--SilasW (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[6] made on October 22 2008 to Where *hasn't* it happened?

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Sorry old fruit, but rules is rules and its more than my jobs worth. Etc etc.

Hints for next time: look at The history of the Wakhan Corridor whatever that is. Presumably some plush carpeted hallway somewhere. its a giant pile of reverts. No-one has even bothered with edit summaries. Now look at the talk page [7]. Nothing. Not a word. It won't work guv William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More tedious advice available upon request.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.100.189 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how citing a few newspaper/magazine articles factually justifies "Expelled" as propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.26.76 (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to engage in discussion before reverting my edit, as to avoid an edit war. At no point did I claim Pakistan was "Middle Eastern", but only that a portion lies on the Iranian Plateau, and thus is included partly within the geographic defintions section. This is common geographic usage. The Scythian 07:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the persecution of muslims section on the see also of the article your islamophobic nationalist hindu views from the BJP must end 86.158.234.2 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please stop adding the disputed tags to articles relating to pakistani kashmir and removing them from indian administered kashmir articles e.g NUN KUN and desoi national park your bias is so evident you remove the disputed tags from indian administered territory and add it to pakistani territory thats beginning to annoy me now please stop your pro indian pathetic edits. 86.162.68.36 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had responded on commons to take the stripes out of the map. I haven't gotten a response back. But I can look at changing California when I wake up tomorrow. As far as I know, anyone can save an .svg file? If not, I'll save it as a .png and someone can change it if they want. Also, if you link to an image, put a colon after the double bracket and before the image name. For example [[:Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg]]. That way it links to the image, but that image doesn't show up on the talk page. :) CTJF83Talk 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg is updated! I don't think we should put the legality of the ban is in question...just yet. Let's see what the California Supreme Court does first. CTJF83Talk 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as yellow stripes are unneeded and redundant. There have been two discussion on that (I can find them if you want me to). If you have any concerns with this, please let me know, and we can discuss it. CTJF83Talk 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to you here CTJF83Talk 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u make it purple only? Why no stripes? CTJF83Talk 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style is specific regarding this point. There is nothing in the intro paragraph, indeed the entire article, that warrants identification as Indian American. The 'early life' section mentions his heritage. Please review and see similar examples on other people's biographies.

Your point, that it is relevant to Kal Penn, unfortunately does not make it relevant for Wikipedia. TunaSushi (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about your contradictory edits to these two mountains. You insist that Nanga Parbat is in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and that Saser Kangri is in India. Infact, both are in the Kashmir region, all of which is disputed. Viewfinder (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The India Star
		For protecting India articles from POV pushers. KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet reports and the checkuser request pages have been merged into one operation now; located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Try filing the report there. Note that I have withdrawn from any involvement in this matter as of a few months ago. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; start a new one following the procedure listed in the new page. I've not had time to take a look at how the new process works, but it looks substantially different from either process previously. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe sorry! In fact, SSP has been discontinued and I moved all the existing cases to the new process (SPI. Your case is indeed located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegreyanomaly. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Thegreyanomaly. It seems that the participants in the SPI discussion would support doing a bunch of semiprotections. Do you think you could make a list of articles you would recommend protecting? Which ones did Lucasbfr protect? EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that! I figured Algebraic123 and the IPs were socks, but I couldn't find anything in my CU. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that gibberish of a list was a better option, and the prose couldn't be improved by use of a little copyedit? Can you, please, explain the reason? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya is simply arguing strongly for his point of view in regards to a content dispute. I see absolutely no incivility that requires a warning or corrective action. Steven Walling (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you didn't create that list. It was already there before you started to revert. None of those comments were aimed at you, rather it was aimed at the content. Nothing to take it so personally. Anyways, since your feelings are hurt, I apologize for coming on too strong. But, you seeking all kinds of action to be taken against me personally was probably done by intention. Can I feel hurt now? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it out. Let me know what you think, and if you don't like it, I can revert it back to the previous. I think the new display version helps differentiate between states that currently allow marriage and the ones (really one) that are [in flux] or recognizing thousands of previous SSM marriages, but not performing new ones. Vickiloves08 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it out. Let me know what you think, and if you don't like it, I can revert it back to the previous. I think the new display version helps differentiate between states that currently allow marriage and the ones (really one) that are [in flux] or recognizing thousands of previous SSM marriages, but not performing new ones. Let me know you're input. Thanks :-) Vickiloves08 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and messed it up. LOL, fortunately, I asked User:Reedy on IRC to change it, and he did CTJF83Talk 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a very good month for LGBT rights! Hopefully it will stay like this! I'm still looking for someone to update the map for me :) CTJF83Talk 19:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, can't find anyone that can update it. CTJF83Talk 03:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!! 2009, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots is turning out to be an outstanding year for gay rights! The New York governor has unveiled legislation to legalize marriage in New York too! [8] CTJF83Talk 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add here, but thanks for thinking of me. Keep up the good work! --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A meaningful Vesak to you my friend. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegreyanomaly. You have new messages at Wikireader41's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Strider11 (talk · contribs) - Easy to spot, eg Teckgeek (talk · contribs) likes creating cats and lots of articles, check User:AlexNewArtBot/PakistanSearchResult a lot of his new accounts show up there. Same POV YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I follow the same-sex marriage map file closely, and noticed you had some experience with editing maps. I was wondering if you might be able to assist me. Essentially, I am trying to update the file Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.svg. As you can see on my talk page, someone recommended a program for coloring a US map, but I cannot get it to work properly. If you are able to help, feel free to let me know so I can go into more detail. Otherwise, I would appreciate any other recommendations as far as programs goes or other tools that can be used. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your assistance! I will look into your comments soon. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks to your assistance and the help from another user (see my talk page if you wish), I have update the map on my computer. One more quick question. How would I upload the updated map? Clicking on the 'Edit' tab here or here doesn't seem to do the trick. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the hyperlinked text to upload a new file, though it might be because one has to be logged in/registered with Wikimedia Commons. I will do so and figure it out. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still do not see the link you are referring to, even after registering at Commons and logging in. Does one need to be an admin or something? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image upload. I see where you are referring to, but I currently don't have access to that link. I will wait several days to see if it appears. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u remove cities I added in the South Asian cities list ??? Deleting what others created is your idea of creation at UC Berkeley ??? J J Parikh 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

Thank you for responding quick. I was a bit surprised to hear from your page that Brahmins were responsible for wiping buddhism from India. That is completely false theory. I don't understand how such theories come into existence. In India every religion has always been welcomed throughout the ages. I can recommend you some reading that will clear your thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h for edit warring on Burma. Would have been 12h since not quite a technical 3RR vio, but for your form William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 8 June 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).

Thegreyanomaly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings •