emails - posted here for other wikipedians as I could not post it where I wanted to post |
|||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
==Emails== |
==Emails== |
||
I am quoting |
I am quoting below an exchange of emials with [[User:Professor33]] |
||
;Quote |
;Quote |
Revision as of 17:30, 1 July 2006
my stepped-up rendezvous with the Simple Wikipedia
Hindi wikiThanks for your offer of services. Please do check the respective categories on Hindi wiki before creating stubs. Please do not stop in your contributions. Cygnus_hansa 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)
ByeI,m going to home,where there is no internet facility. so, I,ll be out of wiki by 15th july.Byeeeee.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh singh linux (talk • contribs) of 26th June 2006 Yummy Bhadaniji... very tasty indeed!!! Thank you very much -- Lost 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Mahabharata glossaryHi Bhadani, please consider to add links in Mahabharata glossary only where they really lead to the desired article; e.g. Arani leads to a Brasilian city, Astra leads to a disambig page etc. Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Saw your work on this page. Thanks for dropping by. Ozdaren 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
HeyYou are still active. I thought you were away till july. How is chennai. --SkyWalker 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you too :). You are right about wikipedia it is very addictive. Iam ok. Bangalore is very very cold nice place :). --SkyWalker 15:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Happy wiki-BirthdayHello friend. I wish you a very happy wiki-birthday. BTW, I learnt of the same from Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year! --Bhadani 08:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the welcomeHi, Thanks for the welcome. I see that you are temporarily inactive till July, but you can please let me know once you are back? I would like some help from you on something that i am confused about. --unni 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Editing "Indian Cinematographers"Hi Bhadani, thanks again. When i tried clicking on the "Email this user" link, there was no email specified. Is this talk page a good way of asking doubts and such? My first query to you is on a page i created, Indian cinematographers. I am updating it as and when possible. Unfortunately, there is another page with a similar intent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_cinematographers (I can't seem to link internally to it, can you tell me how?). I need to know how to merge either that article into mine, or vice versa. Also, the person who last updated that page has linked from that page to his own site. Is that good etiquette? How do we proceed in such circumstances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnikrishnan.am (talk • contribs) of 27.06.2006
Help!Hello Bhadaniji! Could you help me address the concerns of User:Bharatveer on the Ladakh page. I don't think I am fully capable of understanding them. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Birthday thanksThanks for the birthday wishes. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Hindi WPHi Bhadaniji. I was wondering if Indic support is what is preventing you from contributing to Hindi WP. If that's the only reason, I'll be happy to transliterate articles for you, if you write them in Roman script. I think the Hindi wikipedia is in a seriously bad condition. deeptrivia (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
more eyes on the essay?Hi Bhadani, I have recently encountered two other editors who work hard to improve articles and/or delete nonsense. With your permission I would like to point them towards your essay and invite their comments on the Talkpage there. I would only do this if you are ready for more input; if not, that's fine too :) --Doc Tropics 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I pointed them to the essay and I thught they both made good comments. Is that the kind of input you were looking for? I know you have specific goals and your guidance will help keep things on track :) --Doc Tropics 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Kadisha ValleyHi, I am quite confused about the reasons of your contribution on the Kadisha Valley discussion page. Why did you add the Arabic script tag? {{arabic}} The article does have the Arabic script version of the placename in its lead paragraph. Can you clarify? Thanks. FrancescoMazzucotelli 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Hindi WP messageHi, I also posted on your hindi talk page. There is already a page that has 1000 most needed articles similar to Simple wiki. It is called hi: विकिपीडिया:कुछ प्रारंभिक लेख जो कि हर भाषा के विकिपीडिया में होने चाहिए. Btw, For the transliteration process, can u make some type of code for the "na"s "da"s "ta"s etc. Maybe one can be capitalised when the other is not. For big "a"s, please use aa, for big e, i, o, and u, use ai, ee, au and oo respectively. Thanks GizzaChat © 02:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
block on User:ArmsnaxHi, I noticed that you also blocked Armsnax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and from looking at the block log I see you have the set time to expire in 24 hours. [1] I am curious as to why this is? Is there some reason why we would want the block on this vandal's account to expire? I am just curious because I don't want to see such vandals running amok again on wikipedia. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
ReplyYeah, Wikipedia still sickens me for the most part, but it's a slow time at work(sold my first house last week), and i'm trying to remove my writers block in regards to my book on Wikipedia politics. If there were some way to remove the sickening feeling I get towards Wikipedia, that'd help alot. In any case, good to see you again. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Re:NiceThanks. Take Care :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) EmailsI am quoting below an exchange of emials with User:Professor33
My dear Professor, I have full sympathy with you. I have at least one example of an indefinite block which I know that was wrong. I knew persoanlly the person who was blocked indefintely by an administrator under the presumption that he was a sock-puppet of a user. As the user concerned got highly disgusted with this, he/she told me that he/she would never access wikipedia. I was also requested to keep his blocked identity to heart. Having said this and having experienced this first hand, I know that your psotion may be similar. However, I am not able to comment on this except that on a long-term basis wikipedia shall be losing a number of good editors. I know that editing wikipedia is a privilege and I am thankful to the Wikipedia Foundation for giving me this opportunity to edit. But, there may be several editors including adminsitrators who may hold the opinion that they are doing great service to wikipedia by editing or/ and doing admin services. Actually, the position is reverse. I am posting this letter on your talk page so that other wikipedians may see the same. I trust that the community shall evolve a better system to deal with such issues and the sysop shall be made more accountable. With regards, and all the best! Yours Bhadani
Since you are the blocking admin, I wanted to give you the courtesy of this email below. So far I have > only e-mail one admin. I don't want to waste > everyone's time on the same problem. I will e-mail > another tommorrow, and so far. When I am done with > all the admins and the problem is not corrected, I > will write some letters to contacts I have who know > Jimbo to look into this problem. I wish to exhaust > all preliminary steps first. > > Thanks. > E. > > > Greetings esteemed administrator of Wikipedia. > > I am writing because I have been falsely accused, > and e-mail is my last means to try to have this > mistaken corrected within the Wikipedia community. > I respect the project and do not wish to add harm to > it, despite some serious problems. I hope that you > can advise me as to what to do my case, as I am > innocent. I have a lot more to contribute to a > number of scientific articles in particular, and > would like to do so. My user name is Professor33. > > The problem is have been banned indefinitely. The > reason given is that I am accused of being a > socket-puppet (suspected), of a user who was > recently blocked for violating the 3rr rule. Because > it was assumed that I was his socket-puppet, this > user's block was extended from 24hours to one week. > That is also a mistake, also. When I requested to be > unblocked and posted my own protests on my talk > page, it was reverted, and my talk page was locked, > preventing me from communicating with anyone on my > talk page, and stopping me from posting an unblock > request so that other admins could review my pleas. > The admin denying my request each time and locking > my talk page is friends with the editor who attacked > me as a socket-puppet. > > In truth, I have done nothing wrong. I am not a > socket-puppet. I have followed every rule, and > always intended to. I have watched for some time > before I decided to jump in and “be bold.†A > user check will clear my name, and I am willing to > prove my identity if that is necessary. Perhaps the > other editor in question would be willing to prove > his identify as well? Let me know what can be done, > if anything, to correct this injustice--even if it > may not be an honest mistake; my greatest fear is > that this is not an innocent mistake. I am convinced > there is at least a clear malicious element at play > and serves as motivation to suppress an opponent’s > point of view. Let me explain. > > I have long admired Wikipedia, having given it as > assignment of students to start new articles. Some > time ago I started to follow with interest some of > its going-one’s brought to my attention by some of > my students. I ran into a few critical sites of > Wikipedia, some well know, other less so. They each > alleged abuse with the process. I took these with > grains of salt, however one topic--the alleged > "Christian Cabal," which was said to exist around > several article of related religious topics, > dominated by interested Christian editors and admins > with a strong POV in a close-knit relationship-- I > looked into this with some interest, on and off for > several month. You can say I was lurking. One such > site, for example is: This > site does document some of these things I have seen. > There are others, and I can tell you specific other > things I've seen that include double-standards and > dishonesty, and what seems to be a clear intent to > push away legitimate and v > aluable editors by using several tactics, including > following them around, subjecting them to > hyper-scrutiny, and looking for ways to paint a > picture that would lead to them being painted in a > very negative light for the purpose of having them > eliminated. Several users have left in protest, and > other removed as I was. > > In all fairness, sometimes this was due in part to > mistakes of the editors themselves, which were > gladly seized on, but it was clear that it was > always by certain religious extremists who make it > their duty to go after these “enemies.†I say > extreme because they have expressed beliefs such > extreme views such as that the Inquisition and > Crusades were good--or the principal behind them was > good, when pressed). These are the same editors who > have accused me and have resulted in my being > excluded from Wikipedia. This is because I have > taken an interest in countering their bias. Editors > such as myself with a secular humanist perspective > become targets. The editor I'm accuse of being a > socket-puppet of has done a good job and uses tons > of references with extensive use of the talk pages, > which he is able to devote tons of lots of time to > supporting claims. He does this while being attacked > with impunity, but remains level headed and polite, > to his credit. However, many other go > od editors have been banned, some clearly unjustly, > after only making a few edits. NPOV77 is one such > user, for example. He was banned outright as a > socket puppet in a very similar way to how I was. I > finally decided to join after looking at this for a > few months. Of course, I edited things more to my > own interest, such as climate change, global warming > issues. I will note that the editor I’m accused of > being (Giovanni33) has not shown any interest in > these issues. I confess I did follow Giovanni33 to > articles to test out my theory: If I supported him, > would something happen to me? Sadly it has. I just > did not think I'd get banned indefinitely, given my > contributions to other articles and having > established myself as a legitimate editor. But > because of coming into conflict with the > “Christian cabalâ€, I am no longer welcome at > Wikipedia---I am banned from editing at > all--forever! This is a loss, but it did prove my > point that there is a problem. > > AnnH and Str1977 are the principal antagonists. > AnnH, in particular, is quite zealous in her > obsession against Giovanni33. She has referred to > him as her "enemy." She brings up his alleged past > mistakes constantly, however these are over 6 months > old when this editor first joined. Still, she makes > sure to bring up this past history to rub his name > in the mud and effectively “poison the well.†I > note that Giovanni33 also disputes the > characterization of these events, which AnnH of > course spins to her advantage. > > I’m not so much interested in tackling this major > problem, as is too big of a problem to solve. It may > be just a fact of life at Wikipedia. However, I > would like to edit again, honestly and openly. I do > not wish to sneak back in with another IP address > and account. Since I am completely innocent, despite > some appearances to the contrary, and assuming good > intentions among some admins, what can I do to > correct this? What do you advise for someone in my > shoes to do next? As a professor with contacts in > the media I am tempted to bring media attention to > the problem, publishing my case. However, I’d like > to first exhaust all possible venues within the > Wikipedia system, assuming an honest mistake has > been made, despite the best worst intentions of some > of its members. > > I am sorry to bother you and do not want to waste > your time, but this is a good cause and I am > interested in participating in Wikipedia. I am also > innocent. I’m sure that if I go outside the > mechanisms of Wikipedia and add my voice to those of > the critics, I’d for sure never be welcomed back. > I’m hoping it will not come to that. You are the > first admin I have written. I will wait patiently > for your advice. > > Thank you very much in advance for your > consideration. > > -Eugene S. >
--Bhadani 17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |