The attacking part of my comment was directly aimed at dravidian nationalists not at sarvagnya. Baka man 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just stumbled upon a whole series of open proxy edits involved in vote-stacking AfD's, harssing users, etc. Would you mind having a look? Due to the context, I think it is a user you blocked. I started noticing all sorts of them stemming from this diff. I verified all of these are Tor open proxy editors, but there are probably more.
- WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As I was writing this another one appeared.
Yes, thanks, I've blocked and sprotected the pages. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) And another:
Here's another one which was involved in some sort of spat on Frater Xyzzy' user page. Diff
Your allusion to my comments here [1] Let me quote my comments that you have used to assume that I am not Indian " Well for a person who left the nation and sings the American anthem who are you to talk of patriotism ? You worry about the KKK and getting stuck on the wrong end of a cross and let me worry about my country. Haphar 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" In no way refute ( or prove) what my nationality is. And as what my religion is, is not your concern , neither is my nationality. Haphar 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen. I've had a really bad night, so I could just have my stupid head on, but I really didn't understand your post on my talk page! -- Dweller 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I spotted this ( [2]) on my watch list. -- Dweller 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this page ought to be semi-protected? Apparently it has been subject to numerous vandal attacks and 90 per cent of unregistered edits are vandalism. The vandalism-to-edits ratio is astonishingly high. My attempts to get User:Nishkid64 to semi-protect it have been in vain. Mandel 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I noticed that the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration had been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow ( See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his interlocutors as somewhat rabid nationalists. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite User:Fowler&fowler's pretensions of being a neutral observer, i must say all i see are some irredentists demarcating 3000 years of shared history based on a 60 year old line ofetn going against the academic consensus. Amey Aryan DaBrood © 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've got a sec, could you chip in on the talk page of circus, an anon is arguing that it is not POV to label a section on animals as "animal acts and abuse". They are pushing their POV and I'm over it. Thanks. -- Peta 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sean mc sean block - it seems there is an obsessive compulsive pathological issue there - I had tried to venture to deaf ears there - you might be amused (or not) by the current John Forrest talk regarding methods of deceasement (my term) which some of our friends are battling out Satu Suro 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care that much if the articles are deleted or not, but that's a fucked up thing to say. Why on Earth would you say something like that when it's just going to piss people off? I can understand if there are deletion rationales that extend beyond your comments, but what you said was rude. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi you deleted some external links i put on the Bill Clinton page, blocked my account and labled me a spammer. i understand why--i violated the rule of not posting links to a site you are affiliated with. However, i did not violate the spirit of the rule. I run the library at the Miller Center and make available online literally over 3,000 hours of multimedia resource related to the presidency. One of the links you deleted was to a speech page that makes available to the public complete audio of 10 of Bill Clinton's speeches. This material is not available online anywhere else as far as I know. It is a resource we make avaialble for free. The Miller Center is part of the University of Virginia and is non-partisan. Nobody who visited the page would ever consider it spam and any reasonable person would consider an ideal external link. Here is the link for your reference:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/34
It has been suggested to me to request that editors of the pages add links via the discussion pages. In theory this sounds fine, however in practice this does not work. I have a wealth of information on all 42 presidents that i would like to make available to the wikipedia audience. I realistically do not have the time to engage in a discussion about every link that i would like to put on these pages (this assumes that editors of pages even respond to my request). Furthermore, links that i have come accross in the past posted by other users are often quite inaccurate in their description. These are honest mistakes but mistakes none the less. according to the posting rules i do not have the right to even fix those mistakes but rather must go back to the discussion board and request that someone fix them for me. The Miller Center is considered the foremost authority on the American Presidency. We have a treasure trove of material that cannot be found anywhere else in the world (e.g. over 150 hours of complete audio of presidential speeches, over 3,000 hours of secretly recorded conversations from presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; the authoritative oral histories of the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and a number of in depth bibliographies on each president). It would be a shame that these unique and free resources cannot be made available to the wikipedia audience because of a rule that was clearly NOT put in place to stop the type of actions that i am attempting. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to proceed. Many thanks. Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.163.2 ( talk) 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for chiming in there—I didn't want to have to be in the awkward position of being the only person arguing against the inclusion, given the figure at hand, and the stigma that could possibly result. Again, thank you. michael talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt he is a sock of User:Primetime. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this? Baka man 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen. How come I can't vote on Osli73's case? Who are arbitrators? How can I become one? I am refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thanks. Bosniak 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is gone. Are you ok? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're only admin that hasn't got a user page. :))) -- PaxEquilibrium 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Katrina Renars.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 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hope you're OK and enjoy your Wikibreak. Well deserved. Just to let you know that a few of us have responded to your advert. We've started with Paul Collingwood and will try to get it to FA asap. If (when?) we complete the task, we'll press on with another of your selected articles. Cheers, -- Dweller 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I recall seeing a statement by you making a statement on sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here. This was due to Dmcdevit confirming that both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are sockpuppets here. The account for Gnanapiti was warned not to edit on a same page as Sarvagnya. However, after being warned, both accounts were used in a vote fraud here by user acount of Sarvagnya and here by user account Gnanapiti.
With all due respect, I have reported Sarvagnya for his incivil behavior, trolling, and abuse of accounts on the Admin Notification of Incidents here. Instead, I have been bombarded for improper uploading of images. I understand that per procedure as an admin, it is your duty to see to it that editors follow the rules and have accepted your requests and questions to my uploading. Furthermore, I have taken care of that situation. However, it seems that regardless of the report I made, it has been left undone. As administrator of Wikipedia, I ask for justice and equality in dealing with the editors on Wikipedia. Please look into this situation regarding Sarvagnya and take the appropriate action. As it shows, I am not the only one who has requested a check user on Sarvagnya here. Thank you.
Wiki Raja 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikiraja, let me please clarify something for the last time in the admin's presence. I and Gnanapiti(we are two different people, not me with two accounts) were accused of sockpuppetry by Bakasuprman a few months ago. The initial checkuser upheld it. But both of us appealed and upon further investigation, we were cleared of sockpuppetry charges. Btw, 'sockpuppetry' is when one person uses multiple accounts in bad faith.
Now the other concern that then cropped up was of 'meatpuppetry'. Meatpuppetry is when, two or more people in cohorts with each other act in bad faith to push their POV. Now, let me clarify something here.
I introduced Gnanapiti to wikipedia(en.wiki). I only taught him how wiki works, how to edit and inane stuff like that. This does not constitute meatpuppetry by any stretch of imagination. If anything the project needs more people like me who will bring in more editors to build this encyclopedia.
I did not implant any 'ideology' in his head. Whatever his views are, they are purely his own. I have no control over his thought processes. He is a responsible adult and is certainly more than capable of taking a stance about anything. As for my own views, needless to say, they are my own.
So there we have it. Sockpuppetry accusations were hogwash. And meatpuppetry concerns misplaced. And in spite of this, Gnanapiti was effectively blocked for almost a month for no fault of his or mine.
As for Yakshagana, stop giving it a spurious spin. Let me tell it the way it is. Gnanapiti has an interest in Yakshagana and has been editing that article for a long time. As for me, that article was not even on my watchlist. However, I have an interest in what you call 'Dravidian' topics and few of them are on my watchlist. I therefore happened to come across your templates and therefore I landed on Talk:Dravidian topics or one of those 'Dravidian' talk pages. The discussions there went on and on and on with you stubbornly stonewalling. It then started spilling over to multiple talk pages with you leading me from one page to another. I myself had been a part of the discussions on few of them. It was then that I happened to observe that the discussion had reached Talk:Yakshagana too. It was then that I landed on Talk:Yakshagana. You led me there.
As for your charge of votestacking (1) neither Sarvabhaum nor the template votes were 'linguistic' (2) the extra vote hardly mattered. Decision was almost unanimous (3) like I said, we are neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. So it is not very easy to keep a track of what the other is doing. When I vote somewhere, believe me, I dont bother(and cant be expected) looking up and scanning for Gnanapiti's name each time. I just go and vote. Thats all. If anybody(admin or anyone) has concerns about both of us voting, it is upto them to keep an eye out and strike out one of us.
So stop your crowing and get back to doing something useful. Your non stop tirade against me, your vague templates or your copyvios are of no use to wikipedia. So stop it and stop it NOW! Sarvagnya 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Blnguyen - I think I've clarified this as best as I could. I will not respond to any further trolling on his part. If he again uses terms like vandal, votefraud, votestacking, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry etc to describe me or Gnanapiti, I request that you block him for disruption. I think I've explained enough. Sarvagnya 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if they did not vote together or double-revert on things that are divisive along linguistically/regional lines, as that was the agreement I believe. Sarvabhaum is an example of a Marathi editor who was involved in fights against Kannada users, so that qualifies as a linguistic/regional dispute, and thus I don' think they should have voted there or on the Dravidian template. As it was, it caused no issues. This does not mean that they cannot collaborate productively to improve an article, it only applies to team-warring and double voting. If they both help to simply improve an article is no problem. The other thing about the question of meatpuppetry is that both people are working properly on articles in their own right, rather than simply being recruited as a tool of convenience for an extra revert-vote quota, so I wonder what Dmcdevit an Aksi_great would think about whether the restrictions should eventually be relaxed entirely. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is the case. Sarvabhaum the Marathi was blocked because he broke 3RR and then evaded it and create sockpuppets and continued over and over. I nominated the template simply because I feel that it links too many weakly related things together. I also blocked Sarvagnya once last year. I don't think it is accurate to say that I have a special interest in Kannada culture at all; it is simply that the wars that occurred on Wikipedia were in that topic. As for my editing interests, a look at my records User:Blnguyen/Contributions doesn't show anything much in India apart from some cricket and Buddhism articles. Apart from that, I see Portal:Maharashtra, which I created. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir, a anon user with above IP is editing Kannada and Karnataka articles repeatedly and reverting. Dineshkannambadi 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The attacking part of my comment was directly aimed at dravidian nationalists not at sarvagnya. Baka man 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just stumbled upon a whole series of open proxy edits involved in vote-stacking AfD's, harssing users, etc. Would you mind having a look? Due to the context, I think it is a user you blocked. I started noticing all sorts of them stemming from this diff. I verified all of these are Tor open proxy editors, but there are probably more.
- WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As I was writing this another one appeared.
Yes, thanks, I've blocked and sprotected the pages. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) And another:
Here's another one which was involved in some sort of spat on Frater Xyzzy' user page. Diff
Your allusion to my comments here [1] Let me quote my comments that you have used to assume that I am not Indian " Well for a person who left the nation and sings the American anthem who are you to talk of patriotism ? You worry about the KKK and getting stuck on the wrong end of a cross and let me worry about my country. Haphar 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" In no way refute ( or prove) what my nationality is. And as what my religion is, is not your concern , neither is my nationality. Haphar 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen. I've had a really bad night, so I could just have my stupid head on, but I really didn't understand your post on my talk page! -- Dweller 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I spotted this ( [2]) on my watch list. -- Dweller 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this page ought to be semi-protected? Apparently it has been subject to numerous vandal attacks and 90 per cent of unregistered edits are vandalism. The vandalism-to-edits ratio is astonishingly high. My attempts to get User:Nishkid64 to semi-protect it have been in vain. Mandel 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I noticed that the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration had been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow ( See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his interlocutors as somewhat rabid nationalists. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite User:Fowler&fowler's pretensions of being a neutral observer, i must say all i see are some irredentists demarcating 3000 years of shared history based on a 60 year old line ofetn going against the academic consensus. Amey Aryan DaBrood © 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've got a sec, could you chip in on the talk page of circus, an anon is arguing that it is not POV to label a section on animals as "animal acts and abuse". They are pushing their POV and I'm over it. Thanks. -- Peta 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sean mc sean block - it seems there is an obsessive compulsive pathological issue there - I had tried to venture to deaf ears there - you might be amused (or not) by the current John Forrest talk regarding methods of deceasement (my term) which some of our friends are battling out Satu Suro 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care that much if the articles are deleted or not, but that's a fucked up thing to say. Why on Earth would you say something like that when it's just going to piss people off? I can understand if there are deletion rationales that extend beyond your comments, but what you said was rude. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi you deleted some external links i put on the Bill Clinton page, blocked my account and labled me a spammer. i understand why--i violated the rule of not posting links to a site you are affiliated with. However, i did not violate the spirit of the rule. I run the library at the Miller Center and make available online literally over 3,000 hours of multimedia resource related to the presidency. One of the links you deleted was to a speech page that makes available to the public complete audio of 10 of Bill Clinton's speeches. This material is not available online anywhere else as far as I know. It is a resource we make avaialble for free. The Miller Center is part of the University of Virginia and is non-partisan. Nobody who visited the page would ever consider it spam and any reasonable person would consider an ideal external link. Here is the link for your reference:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/34
It has been suggested to me to request that editors of the pages add links via the discussion pages. In theory this sounds fine, however in practice this does not work. I have a wealth of information on all 42 presidents that i would like to make available to the wikipedia audience. I realistically do not have the time to engage in a discussion about every link that i would like to put on these pages (this assumes that editors of pages even respond to my request). Furthermore, links that i have come accross in the past posted by other users are often quite inaccurate in their description. These are honest mistakes but mistakes none the less. according to the posting rules i do not have the right to even fix those mistakes but rather must go back to the discussion board and request that someone fix them for me. The Miller Center is considered the foremost authority on the American Presidency. We have a treasure trove of material that cannot be found anywhere else in the world (e.g. over 150 hours of complete audio of presidential speeches, over 3,000 hours of secretly recorded conversations from presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; the authoritative oral histories of the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and a number of in depth bibliographies on each president). It would be a shame that these unique and free resources cannot be made available to the wikipedia audience because of a rule that was clearly NOT put in place to stop the type of actions that i am attempting. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to proceed. Many thanks. Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.163.2 ( talk) 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for chiming in there—I didn't want to have to be in the awkward position of being the only person arguing against the inclusion, given the figure at hand, and the stigma that could possibly result. Again, thank you. michael talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt he is a sock of User:Primetime. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this? Baka man 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen. How come I can't vote on Osli73's case? Who are arbitrators? How can I become one? I am refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thanks. Bosniak 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is gone. Are you ok? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're only admin that hasn't got a user page. :))) -- PaxEquilibrium 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Katrina Renars.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 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hope you're OK and enjoy your Wikibreak. Well deserved. Just to let you know that a few of us have responded to your advert. We've started with Paul Collingwood and will try to get it to FA asap. If (when?) we complete the task, we'll press on with another of your selected articles. Cheers, -- Dweller 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I recall seeing a statement by you making a statement on sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here. This was due to Dmcdevit confirming that both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are sockpuppets here. The account for Gnanapiti was warned not to edit on a same page as Sarvagnya. However, after being warned, both accounts were used in a vote fraud here by user acount of Sarvagnya and here by user account Gnanapiti.
With all due respect, I have reported Sarvagnya for his incivil behavior, trolling, and abuse of accounts on the Admin Notification of Incidents here. Instead, I have been bombarded for improper uploading of images. I understand that per procedure as an admin, it is your duty to see to it that editors follow the rules and have accepted your requests and questions to my uploading. Furthermore, I have taken care of that situation. However, it seems that regardless of the report I made, it has been left undone. As administrator of Wikipedia, I ask for justice and equality in dealing with the editors on Wikipedia. Please look into this situation regarding Sarvagnya and take the appropriate action. As it shows, I am not the only one who has requested a check user on Sarvagnya here. Thank you.
Wiki Raja 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikiraja, let me please clarify something for the last time in the admin's presence. I and Gnanapiti(we are two different people, not me with two accounts) were accused of sockpuppetry by Bakasuprman a few months ago. The initial checkuser upheld it. But both of us appealed and upon further investigation, we were cleared of sockpuppetry charges. Btw, 'sockpuppetry' is when one person uses multiple accounts in bad faith.
Now the other concern that then cropped up was of 'meatpuppetry'. Meatpuppetry is when, two or more people in cohorts with each other act in bad faith to push their POV. Now, let me clarify something here.
I introduced Gnanapiti to wikipedia(en.wiki). I only taught him how wiki works, how to edit and inane stuff like that. This does not constitute meatpuppetry by any stretch of imagination. If anything the project needs more people like me who will bring in more editors to build this encyclopedia.
I did not implant any 'ideology' in his head. Whatever his views are, they are purely his own. I have no control over his thought processes. He is a responsible adult and is certainly more than capable of taking a stance about anything. As for my own views, needless to say, they are my own.
So there we have it. Sockpuppetry accusations were hogwash. And meatpuppetry concerns misplaced. And in spite of this, Gnanapiti was effectively blocked for almost a month for no fault of his or mine.
As for Yakshagana, stop giving it a spurious spin. Let me tell it the way it is. Gnanapiti has an interest in Yakshagana and has been editing that article for a long time. As for me, that article was not even on my watchlist. However, I have an interest in what you call 'Dravidian' topics and few of them are on my watchlist. I therefore happened to come across your templates and therefore I landed on Talk:Dravidian topics or one of those 'Dravidian' talk pages. The discussions there went on and on and on with you stubbornly stonewalling. It then started spilling over to multiple talk pages with you leading me from one page to another. I myself had been a part of the discussions on few of them. It was then that I happened to observe that the discussion had reached Talk:Yakshagana too. It was then that I landed on Talk:Yakshagana. You led me there.
As for your charge of votestacking (1) neither Sarvabhaum nor the template votes were 'linguistic' (2) the extra vote hardly mattered. Decision was almost unanimous (3) like I said, we are neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. So it is not very easy to keep a track of what the other is doing. When I vote somewhere, believe me, I dont bother(and cant be expected) looking up and scanning for Gnanapiti's name each time. I just go and vote. Thats all. If anybody(admin or anyone) has concerns about both of us voting, it is upto them to keep an eye out and strike out one of us.
So stop your crowing and get back to doing something useful. Your non stop tirade against me, your vague templates or your copyvios are of no use to wikipedia. So stop it and stop it NOW! Sarvagnya 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Blnguyen - I think I've clarified this as best as I could. I will not respond to any further trolling on his part. If he again uses terms like vandal, votefraud, votestacking, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry etc to describe me or Gnanapiti, I request that you block him for disruption. I think I've explained enough. Sarvagnya 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if they did not vote together or double-revert on things that are divisive along linguistically/regional lines, as that was the agreement I believe. Sarvabhaum is an example of a Marathi editor who was involved in fights against Kannada users, so that qualifies as a linguistic/regional dispute, and thus I don' think they should have voted there or on the Dravidian template. As it was, it caused no issues. This does not mean that they cannot collaborate productively to improve an article, it only applies to team-warring and double voting. If they both help to simply improve an article is no problem. The other thing about the question of meatpuppetry is that both people are working properly on articles in their own right, rather than simply being recruited as a tool of convenience for an extra revert-vote quota, so I wonder what Dmcdevit an Aksi_great would think about whether the restrictions should eventually be relaxed entirely. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is the case. Sarvabhaum the Marathi was blocked because he broke 3RR and then evaded it and create sockpuppets and continued over and over. I nominated the template simply because I feel that it links too many weakly related things together. I also blocked Sarvagnya once last year. I don't think it is accurate to say that I have a special interest in Kannada culture at all; it is simply that the wars that occurred on Wikipedia were in that topic. As for my editing interests, a look at my records User:Blnguyen/Contributions doesn't show anything much in India apart from some cricket and Buddhism articles. Apart from that, I see Portal:Maharashtra, which I created. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir, a anon user with above IP is editing Kannada and Karnataka articles repeatedly and reverting. Dineshkannambadi 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)