Belgaum, Mahwiki, et al 

Hi Blnguyen, how are you ? Comin to the point, I am quite dissapointed by the way you have handled the Belgaum issue. I know Mahawiki has sometimes violated some rules, but remember that he was provoked to do so. You gave a warning on Mahawiki's page but you didn't warn any of the Kannada editors. If you don't know, all four(?) of them, Sarvagnya, KNM, Naveenbm and Gnanapiti had questioned the verifiability of the reference Mahawiki had provided. But had anyone else questioned it ? Still, Mahawiki e-mailed the file to everyone, then he uploaded it. Tell me wasn't all this done in good faith. Then these guys "trashed" his citation. What were you doing then ? You should've warned them. Mahawiki had to provide an online link to the article, which he has now provided. I think these same rules should apply to them as well. I question the verifiablity of Suryanath Kamat. Even if Suryanath Kamat may be a good writer (which I know he is not), but is what Kannambadi filling pages with, the same thing from the book. Kannambadi may be filling something else. And references from a single book could be WP:NEO. What about that ? And another thing, the way you replied on Kannambadi's page reeked of bias and partisan attitude. Really, I was never so dissapointed on Wikipedia. You know, when Mahawiki used yo get dissapointed, I would always tell him to keep faith in Wikipedia's admins. And I always believed the admins would never be prejudiced. But I've been extremely dissapointed. I had high hopes from you that you'll give justice. Rajyaमहाराष्ट्र