Congratulations on your first userpage vandalism! Herostratus 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Also here are your current WP:SERVICE awards, if you want them:
- Wow, you've gotten busy. At this rate you'll be Tutnun in a few months. Herostratus 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Starwood Festival pages - help!
You are not using the article discussion page when you change pages in a manner as you just did with Andrew Cohen. When you do this without engaging other editors interested in the article you are missing the opportunity to explain, education and discuss. You did not engage in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival and so that opportunity to discuss and understand was missed. How are we going to resolve this? The whole thing is going to start up again if we don't behave more kindly to one another, even if we don't agree. Mattisse (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings, Hanuman Das. In the interests of full disclosure, I want to draw your attention to my recent comments on the talk page of the Starwood discussion. I have seen and respected your work in the past, but I'm troubled by one particular edit of yours.
- Similarly, I've had concerns about Mattisse in the past, but in this case it's starting to look like zie may be in the right, at least partially.
- Please jump into the discussion; it'll put you in a better position to defend your edits against charges of linkspamming.
- Septegram 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some things really wrong with the Neem Karoli Baba page here. -- Abhinav
- Could you be a bit more specific? Clearly it could use expansion, but I don't think there is anything terribly "wrong" with it at the moment. — Hanuman Das 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You always seem a cut above the other endorsers, and it seemed like we could be friends for a while there. Yes, it does give me ulcers and untold distress. But (I disclose to you alone) I am a UC at Berkeley graduate and the standing up for principle stuff I can't seem to let go of that. I believe that Rosencomet and 999 are deeply in the wrong and misinformed. So what are my choices, given my background? It's a failing of mine but there it is. I truly am not antipagan (even if I don't know what that is) but, for heaven's sakes, I listen to Art Bell et al every night -- which seems to me beyond pagamism. A few nights ago I learned that the new Canadian Prime Minister's greatest fear is that the US will get into a war with extra-terrestials. (Even Art Bell seemed nonplussed about that.) Oh, be my friend. I can't negotiate all alone through this Wikipedia world. Could we agree to disagree on some things and still like and enjoy each other? Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Self-published" means here that the only source of info is the illuminates themselves, without independent third-party evaluation. Since this bullshit is mosty harmless, I will not lose my sleep over it. Good luck to defend them. I will not interfere any more. `' mikkanarxi 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Pigman has asked a question of you on the Starwood mediation page... Thought you'd want to know... Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that part of the mediation is really being addressed, but that is up to Salix Alba to decide. I think his intention was to address ALL of the linking, including internal linking, and thus far I believe only some external links to the web site have been removed. Either way, I am advising Pigman to open the RfC to get the larger community involved. -- Ars Scriptor 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason for your flurry of recent edits like this? There is a place to seek remedies for sockpuppetry, and article talk pages are not it. Adding unsigned taglines to someone's else's contributions, socks or not, is just disruptive and incivil. -- Ars Scriptor 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hanuman Das. There are some issues that I would like to discuss with you regarding some of your recent edits. Are you amenable to a discussion? -- BostonMA talk 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically I used Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Assessment#Quality_scale.
Which is just to say it was my own personal assessment.
Personally, I think it is really close to an A and probably is, and I wish I could be more specific but can't think of any specific suggestions (right now)
TheRingess 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
It was a JOKE, get it? Or do I have to Wikilink it, joke. No policy violations were committed, there was no "abuse, libel, or ban evasion." Stop harassing me. — Hanuman Das 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have notions about how Wikipedia works, and about Wikipedia policies that do not correspond to my own beliefs. My suggestion to you is to either a) wait things out, or b) acknowledge that you threatened to use sockpuppets in a disruptive way and state for the record that you will not use sockpuppets. Of course there is always option c) which is to ignore the advice that is given to you. Sincerely, -- BostonMA talk 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Also, removing discussions that I am having with you while you are attempting to resolve your sockpuppetry case do not help your cause. -- BostonMA talk 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no cause, and I am no longer interested in communication with you. You have no sense of humor. Please don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. — Hanuman Das 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on your first userpage vandalism! Herostratus 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Also here are your current WP:SERVICE awards, if you want them:
- Wow, you've gotten busy. At this rate you'll be Tutnun in a few months. Herostratus 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Starwood Festival pages - help!
You are not using the article discussion page when you change pages in a manner as you just did with Andrew Cohen. When you do this without engaging other editors interested in the article you are missing the opportunity to explain, education and discuss. You did not engage in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival and so that opportunity to discuss and understand was missed. How are we going to resolve this? The whole thing is going to start up again if we don't behave more kindly to one another, even if we don't agree. Mattisse (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings, Hanuman Das. In the interests of full disclosure, I want to draw your attention to my recent comments on the talk page of the Starwood discussion. I have seen and respected your work in the past, but I'm troubled by one particular edit of yours.
- Similarly, I've had concerns about Mattisse in the past, but in this case it's starting to look like zie may be in the right, at least partially.
- Please jump into the discussion; it'll put you in a better position to defend your edits against charges of linkspamming.
- Septegram 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some things really wrong with the Neem Karoli Baba page here. -- Abhinav
- Could you be a bit more specific? Clearly it could use expansion, but I don't think there is anything terribly "wrong" with it at the moment. — Hanuman Das 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You always seem a cut above the other endorsers, and it seemed like we could be friends for a while there. Yes, it does give me ulcers and untold distress. But (I disclose to you alone) I am a UC at Berkeley graduate and the standing up for principle stuff I can't seem to let go of that. I believe that Rosencomet and 999 are deeply in the wrong and misinformed. So what are my choices, given my background? It's a failing of mine but there it is. I truly am not antipagan (even if I don't know what that is) but, for heaven's sakes, I listen to Art Bell et al every night -- which seems to me beyond pagamism. A few nights ago I learned that the new Canadian Prime Minister's greatest fear is that the US will get into a war with extra-terrestials. (Even Art Bell seemed nonplussed about that.) Oh, be my friend. I can't negotiate all alone through this Wikipedia world. Could we agree to disagree on some things and still like and enjoy each other? Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Self-published" means here that the only source of info is the illuminates themselves, without independent third-party evaluation. Since this bullshit is mosty harmless, I will not lose my sleep over it. Good luck to defend them. I will not interfere any more. `' mikkanarxi 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Pigman has asked a question of you on the Starwood mediation page... Thought you'd want to know... Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that part of the mediation is really being addressed, but that is up to Salix Alba to decide. I think his intention was to address ALL of the linking, including internal linking, and thus far I believe only some external links to the web site have been removed. Either way, I am advising Pigman to open the RfC to get the larger community involved. -- Ars Scriptor 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason for your flurry of recent edits like this? There is a place to seek remedies for sockpuppetry, and article talk pages are not it. Adding unsigned taglines to someone's else's contributions, socks or not, is just disruptive and incivil. -- Ars Scriptor 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hanuman Das. There are some issues that I would like to discuss with you regarding some of your recent edits. Are you amenable to a discussion? -- BostonMA talk 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically I used Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Assessment#Quality_scale.
Which is just to say it was my own personal assessment.
Personally, I think it is really close to an A and probably is, and I wish I could be more specific but can't think of any specific suggestions (right now)
TheRingess 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
It was a JOKE, get it? Or do I have to Wikilink it, joke. No policy violations were committed, there was no "abuse, libel, or ban evasion." Stop harassing me. — Hanuman Das 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have notions about how Wikipedia works, and about Wikipedia policies that do not correspond to my own beliefs. My suggestion to you is to either a) wait things out, or b) acknowledge that you threatened to use sockpuppets in a disruptive way and state for the record that you will not use sockpuppets. Of course there is always option c) which is to ignore the advice that is given to you. Sincerely, -- BostonMA talk 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Also, removing discussions that I am having with you while you are attempting to resolve your sockpuppetry case do not help your cause. -- BostonMA talk 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no cause, and I am no longer interested in communication with you. You have no sense of humor. Please don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. — Hanuman Das 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)