Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hamsacharya dan

message: I would like to give below the links to my two messages to two of the signatories to this issue:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanuman_Das#Gurunath
**Updating the link with the following comments from my talk page: BTW, he has removed my message to him - guilty mind is always concious: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hanuman_Das&diff=51063688&oldid=51015868 --Bhadani 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. All other forms of mediation have been exhausted. Although two mediators approved a section in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, User:Hamsacharya dan continues to remove the section, even though he was the user who asked for the mediation. I have tried to put the edits in either forward or reverse chronological order in the RfC. I am simply trying to make the article better per WP standards, but User:Hamsacharya dan reverts nearly every one of my edits. It is he who is being malicious and continues to demonstate this through both uncivil edit comments and uncivil talk page comment. Again, see the links in the RfC. —Hanuman Das 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I have to say is, WHY DON'T THEY (Hanuman Das, Baba Louis, Chai Walla) EVER ADD ANY QUALITY CONTENT TO THE YOGIRAJ GURUNATH SIDDHANATH PAGE?  WHY IS EVERY SINGLE COMMENT A HALF-BAKED CRITICISM? 95% OF THE EDITS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO EITHER DELETE CONTENT, OR ADD FAULTY CLAIMS.  Hanuman Das doesn't mention that he recruited Chai Walla and Baba Louis to bolster his opinion.  Both usernames were created within a few hours of each other, right when Hanuman Das wanted to get his way.  He also doesn't mention how I filed an AN/I against him citing dozens of violations of sneaky vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring, etc, which he asked me to remove on the condition that he would work together with me - that lasted for a good 4 days, and then abruptly ended when he started with the vandalism again. He also doesn't mention that he probably created a few other fake usernames, namely "Gurunath" and "I'm Babaji", and "999", just to screw with the Yogiraj Gurunath page - but I'd never be able to prove it because he probably used different computers.  Who are you trying to kid Hanuman Das - you're as culpable as anybody in this mess.  Quit pointing the finger - there are three pointing back at you.  Take a look at my RfC rebuttal and you will see plenty of evidence. Hamsacharya dan 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAWNNN. You're losing it, Dan. Don't you know that many eyes are watching you right now? You're proving all my points, demonstrating them in real time. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what - actions speak louder than words.  Period.  You are a good wordsmith and do well at tweaking and manipulating with people's perceptions...it's no wonder you broadcast your degree as a "semantician"....You do the same thing with your weak criticisms which you put into articles that you do in talk pages - use some BS logic like "You're losing it, Dan".  Based on what?  That I use capital letters and bold to be clear about a point?  Sorry, but you're not wiggling out of this one Das.  You initiated this RfC - now you're going to have to show your true colors to all involved.  Hamsacharya dan 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dan, I don't believe I have anything to wiggle out of. I readily admit that I reverted too much when we first started this. However, even WP policy allows that one revert per day is not unreasonable. With respect to the changes I have pursued, for nearly every one that is controversial, I can quickly point out where I attempted to discuss it on the talk page. Can you do that for yours? I recall long periods of time where I would attempt to start a discussion and you only answered in edit comments, if at all. That's my primary complaint - non-discussion and/or "discussion" without any attempt to reach a compromise... —Hanuman Das 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For kind attention

message: Kindly see the following:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Gurunath_2
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Response_to_.22Please_do_not_revert.22
In view of the style of functioning of the involved parties, it appears prima facie that this RfC is malicious and fit to be closed. However, the matter is being further probed by me. --Bhadani 07:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. All other forms of mediation have been exhausted. Although two mediators approved a section in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, User:Hamsacharya dan continues to remove the section, even though he was the user who asked for the mediation. I have tried to put the edits in either forward or reverse chronological order in the RfC. I am simply trying to make the article better per WP standards, but User:Hamsacharya dan reverts nearly every one of my edits. It is he who is being malicious and continues to demonstate this through both uncivil edit comments and uncivil talk page comment. Again, see the links in the RfC. —Hanuman Das 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I have to say is, WHY DON'T THEY (Hanuman Das, Baba Louis, Chai Walla) EVER ADD ANY QUALITY CONTENT TO THE YOGIRAJ GURUNATH SIDDHANATH PAGE?  WHY IS EVERY SINGLE COMMENT A HALF-BAKED CRITICISM? 95% OF THE EDITS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO EITHER DELETE CONTENT, OR ADD FAULTY CLAIMS.  Hanuman Das doesn't mention that he recruited Chai Walla and Baba Louis to bolster his opinion.  Both usernames were created within a few hours of each other, right when Hanuman Das wanted to get his way.  He also doesn't mention how I filed an AN/I against him citing dozens of violations of sneaky vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring, etc, which he asked me to remove on the condition that he would work together with me - that lasted for a good 4 days, and then abruptly ended when he started with the vandalism again. He also doesn't mention that he probably created a few other fake usernames, namely "Gurunath" and "I'm Babaji", and "999", just to screw with the Yogiraj Gurunath page - but I'd never be able to prove it because he probably used different computers.  Who are you trying to kid Hanuman Das - you're as culpable as anybody in this mess.  Quit pointing the finger - there are three pointing back at you.  Take a look at my RfC rebuttal and you will see plenty of evidence. Hamsacharya dan 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAWNNN. You're losing it, Dan. Don't you know that many eyes are watching you right now? You're proving all my points, demonstrating them in real time. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what - actions speak louder than words.  Period.  You are a good wordsmith and do well at tweaking and manipulating with people's perceptions...it's no wonder you broadcast your degree as a "semantician"....You do the same thing with your weak criticisms which you put into articles that you do in talk pages - use some BS logic like "You're losing it, Dan".  Based on what?  That I use capital letters and bold to be clear about a point?  Sorry, but you're not wiggling out of this one Das.  You initiated this RfC - now you're going to have to show your true colors to all involved.  Hamsacharya dan 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dan, I don't believe I have anything to wiggle out of. I readily admit that I reverted too much when we first started this. However, even WP policy allows that one revert per day is not unreasonable. With respect to the changes I have pursued, for nearly every one that is controversial, I can quickly point out where I attempted to discuss it on the talk page. Can you do that for yours? I recall long periods of time where I would attempt to start a discussion and you only answered in edit comments, if at all. That's my primary complaint - non-discussion and/or "discussion" without any attempt to reach a compromise... —Hanuman Das 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further notes