User talk:Hindutashravi

user:Hindutashravi: I don't know what irredentist fantasy you are operating under, but the so-called Hindutash Davan was never a part of Kashmir or Ladakh. It was shown to be a part of Chinese Turkestan in the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer Map of India. In 1857, when the Schlagintweit brothers explored the area, it was even farther from the boundaries of Kashmir than it was in 1909. If you have the urge to write historical fantasy, please consider fiction, not Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) PS. For someone who claims to have created this article, you don't even have a very clear sense where the pass is. The article is poorly written. You have the name "Schlagintweit" spelled wrong. You use the expression inter alia in a way that shows incomplete understanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutashravi: You don't have any references. You claim your citation is "Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh," but who published it and where? Please provide precise references before you revert; otherwise, I will be forced to bring it up on the Wikipedia notice board. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Ragib 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ravi. I've noticed that Fowler&fowler is a reasonable editor who is ready to discuss differences in a calm and informed manner. He is highly approachable and is not out to insult or humiliate newer users like you. But if you cannot precisely identify the sources backing up your edits, though, he (and other Wikipedians) will not compromise on the key Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Please read up on it, since it will definitely help you avoid needless disputes like this. Thanks. Saravask 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--User:Hindutashravi What references does Fowler have to show that Aksai Chin is disputed? Absolutely nothing! As a matter of fact, the Two maps clearly depict Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir. The only thing that he wants is to say that "Hindutash is in so called Chinese Turkistan" for which where are his references? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hindutashravi (talk • contribs).

Hindutash has nothing to do with Aksai Chin. Hindutash is north of Aksai Chin, north of the Karakorams. With the exception of the map of W. H. Johnson (who later joined the service of Gulab Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja of Kashmir, and who was discredited) all other maps: those of the Schlagintweit brothers, H. Trotter, Aurel Stein, Imperial Gazetteer of India, all regard Hindutash as a part of Chinese Turkestan and not India or Kashmir. How did you manage to acquire it for India? Even the Indian government doesn't regard it as a part of Aksai Chin. I have provided all the references in the article. Where are yours? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutash is in northern Aksai Chin. W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points. Brinjga was in his view the boundary post ( a few miles south east of Karanghu Tagh). Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was part of Kashmir territory. The Maharaja of Kashmir had built a Fort in Shahidulla in exercise of his sovereignty. What right has China whom you are supporting, have over this area? Absolutely nothing. Of course, to you might is right. Though, all other maps: those of the Schlagintweit brothers, H. Trotter, Aurel Stein, Imperial Gazetteer of India, do not depict that part of India as part of Kashmir, never the less depict the northern border just short of the actual Kuen Lun border of Kashmir and depict the border along the Raskam River depicting inter alia Kulanaldi and Bazardara , and Taghdumbash Pamir as part of Kashmir. The border was never depicted along the Karakoram in central Kashmir as is done illegally now. Most of the maps you refer to infact depict the Yarung Kash as originating in Aksai Chin. Johnson knew about the status quo pertaining to that particular area that was prevailing during his time. He has been discredited by those who hate India. I did not acquire Hindutash for India. Hindutash has always been part of India. You are trying to acquire it for China which does not have an iota of right over the part of India. What the subservient Government of India regards is irrelevant. What territory constitutes India is defined in the Constitution of India , and the Constitution of India has to be amended to serve your ulterior purpose. Hindutashravi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hindutash. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked yet again for 3RR violation. Please try to discuss disputes on the articles talk page instead of edit warring. --Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Please also note that, if the disruption continues, block periods will be steadily lengthened, possibly resulting in an indefinite block. Thanks. Saravask 03:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hindutashravi, it is better to sign in as yourself and then sign your post by typing four tildes as in ~~~~ than editing as an IP 59.92.47.193 (talk · contribs) and typing your name [[user:Hindutashravi|Hindutashravi]] as you have done both on this page above and in your post on my page (as another IP: 59.92.43.200 (talk · contribs). Why don't we continue the substantive discussion on the talk page Talk:Hindutash? I will reply to your post there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aksai Chin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You I notice that you have allready been warned about your edit war about Aksai Chin, but if anyting you have become more extream in your edits, practically rewriting the entire article without discussion. This is not acceptable. I also see above that you have been warned a number of times above, and had temp block, if you continue in this way it could result in a permanent block.--Keithonearth (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Postal Map of China ,1917.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been edit warring on Hindutash, Aksai Chin and elsewhere. This is frowned upon; you risk being blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page. Regards. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hindutashravi. I understand your frustration with the locating of the pass in China. But do note that wikipedia is not an advocacy site and is meant to provide the best available information on a subject. The fact of the matter is that the pass is currently in an area that is within the territorial boundaries of China and that neither the government of India or the government of China (or that of Pakistan) dispute this. Perhaps there is an old Kashmiri claim to the pass but that cannot change current reality and you cannot locate the pass in Kashmir - the world is full of places that once belonged to this country but now belong to that. If you have proper sources that back up the historical location of the pass as being in Kashmir, you can state that in the body of the article, not in the lead. However, even your historical sources are dubious because, while they may place the pass in Kashmir, they do so only at a single point of time, and do not do so in a clear and unequivocal manner. At best, this information merits a couple of lines in the body of the article.

Please also note that while reverting the article once or twice daily is not in technical violation of the WP:3RR rule, you are Edit warring and you can still be blocked for doing that. I personally won't do so but it will happen and the chances are that none of your edits will survive on wikipedia. Think about that and try to work with Fowler&fowler constructively. Regards. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 14:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you know that I think it is offencive that you would accuse me in the edit summery here that I'm not using the talk page to discuss changes made when I do make a note on a talk page of any edit I feel is controversial. As for your edit suggesting that Aksai Chin is not disputed, and is a part of India, I had started a section on the talk page with the title Is Aksai Chin disputed? which, so far, you have totally failed to respond to. I find such laying of blame inappropriate and unhelpful. It also seems indicative of your complete disregard of the established facts that you should blame me for not using the talk page, while you are the one not using it yourself. I hope to see a change of behaviour from you, as you risk being banned again. --Keithonearth (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To --Keithonearth I had actually not noticed the new section you started in the talk page. Even that was subsequent to my earnest request, "a recent claim does not make the territory disputed. Two official Chinese maps depicting Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir have been included in the article. Discuss issues in the Talk". My frustration was that even though I had requested you way back on 22, February 2009 to edit only the aspects of the article which allegedly were POV, so that one could progress to a consensus, rather than totally restoring to the previous version which was not going to be a solution, but you had ignored my request and went on reverting to the previous version. So, it is your action and conduct which is inappropriate and unhelpful, and reprehensive. As for your allegation that I was not myself using the talk page, since you were alleging that my edit was full of POV, I was waiting for a response from you enumerating those aspects of my edit which were allegedly “POV” so that I could respond to your views and unless I am told what aspects of my edit were POV, there was nothing for me to discuss in the Talk Page! Right? I have had a bitter experience in the past with other editors User:Fowler&fowler: and --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) with User:Fowler&fowler: totally ignoring my messages and User:RegentsPark not giving a proper reply to some of my messages while pretending as though he was selectively blind regarding the other messages. I reiterate that even my edit is not totally a new article altogether but contains aspects of the earlier versions and is a continuation of the older versions. Besides, your section on the talk page with the title “Is Aksai Chin disputed?” does not discuss what aspects of my edit are POV so as to enable a discussion on the issue further and evolve to a consensus, which is what I expected from you. So I would expect you to point out those aspects of my edit which allegedly are POV so that we can discuss them and one can arrive at a consensus. Right now, I do not even know what aspects of the article are controversial. Right?Hindutashravi (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responce, I'll answer on the Aksai_Chin Talk page.

I feel the need to point out that you have reverted multiple other wikipedian's work (3 times over a 24 hr and 20 min period) [1][2][3].--Keithonearth (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Aksai_Chin Talk page for my answer.Hindutashravi (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kashmir, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SBC-YPR (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made was:

• firstly, repetitive and contained information that was described elsewhere in the article, in violation of WP:LEAD;
• secondly, unsourced (the inter alia... part), in violation of WP:V and WP:PROVEIT;
• thirdly, lacked grammar and punctuation (although this can be condoned).

Therefore, it has been reverted, not once or twice, but three times by two different editors.

Also, I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page to create consensus, especially when you are attempting to make major changes to the article's lead section. Going about it the present way is only likely to get you into trouble for edit warring.

Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it also might get you banned/blocked from Wikipedia. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edit because most of it was irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. As the hatnote clearly states, the article is about the area administered by India, while the borders you stated were those of (Greater) Kashmir. Further, external links such as the Baroness Nicholson's letter, etc., would also more appropriate on the Kashmir page (where they already exist) instead of the J&K page. Also, when you're adding information, try using inline citations as far as possible, instead of using external links (as you did with the part about the seats in the J&K legislature). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hindutashravi. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GedUK  17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't really want to keep the article protected so I hope you'll stay within the accepted boundaries. It's up to you. (You may want to read WP:TE. Note that the outcome of that is rarely good. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hindutashravi: I have just been checking a number of maps and references and, unfortunately, I find I cannot agree with you. The Sanju Pass was across the range to the north of Shahidulla. Now, this is well to the north of area of the Aksai Chin, still claimed by India as can be easily seen in the latest edition (the 12th edition) of the Times Atlas of the World, Map 26.

It is also north of any areas claimed in the 19th century by the state of Kashmir in the 19th century as the following text (which I have snipped from the page on Xaidulla which makes plain that the territory of Kashmir at that time ended at the Karakoram range:

Robert Shaw visited Xaidulla in 1868 on his trip to Yarkand from Ladakh over the Karakoram Pass. He was held in detention there for a time in a small fort made of sun-died bricks on a shingly plain not far from the Karakash River which, at that time, was under the control of the Governor of Yarkand on behalf of the ruler of Kashgaria, Yaqub Beg.^[1] Shaw says there was no village at all: "it is merely a camping-ground on the regular old route between Ladâk and Yârkand, and the first place where I should strike that route. Four years ago [i.e. in 1864], while the troubles were still going on in Toorkistân, the Maharaja of Cashmeer sent a few soldiers and workmen across the Karakoram ranges (his real boundary), and built a small fort at Shahidoolla. This fort his troops occupied during two summers; but last year, when matters became settled; and the whole country united under the King of Yarkand, these troops were withdrawn."^[2]

So, as far as I can tell the Sanju Pass was always (at least in recent centuries) north of the territories claimed by Kashmir and, later, India, so, I am sorry, but I cannot support you in this argument. If you have any evidence showing otherwise, though, I will be happy to consider it.

However, I totally agree with your position that it is best in disputes like this to leave the matter open - an encyclopedia article is not a good place to try to settle nationalist arguments. I have wasted many, many hours trying to argue such matters over claimed historically-based Chinese rights to Tibet and Xinjiang. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references Number 5 to 10 in the Article Sanju Pass are an evidence where in the Chinese officials have themselves conceded that East Turkistan extended only up to the northern foot hills of the Kuen Lun range. You can also refer to this external site [4] . You can also go through my messages in the Talk Page of the Hindutash article which will help you to understand the extent of the territory of Kashmir as reiterated by the only Pan-Kashmir Government before 1947, when the Princely State of Kashmir acceded “in its entirety [5] to the new Dominion of India”on October 26, 1947. Right now, I am traveling and will be back to my hometown on 8th June. When I can provide another evidence on the status quo at that time.Hindutashravi (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't use misleading edit summaries as you did on this edit to Sanju Pass. I've reverted your edit pending a proper explanation on the talk page and a proper edit summary. Thanks! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Hindutashravi. You have new messages at RegentsPark's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just letting you know that you're involved in this thread at ANI. Additionally, you seem to be under the misapprehension that there is some sort of group of editors out to get you. I can assure you that there is not, and you need to assume good faith on the parts of other users. Continuing to assume and state that editors are against you, and ascribing it to malicious intent on their part, is considered an attack, and may result in you getting blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:lifebaka: Just, what exactly is the “hint” that I should take from you? The statement of User:YellowMonkey that I am “completely against consensus” is yet another misrepresentation. It has been me who has been endeavoring for consensus all along. If at all User:RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler had an iota of intention to arrive at a consensus, given the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence provided by me in the articles on inter alia Hindutash[6], Sanju Pass and Aksai Chin[7], the issue could have been amicably sorted out long ago. But they i.e. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been spurning my attempt all along because they just wanted to retain their POV version Come What May through hook or crook! And now they shamelessly make misrepresentations! His i.e.User:YellowMonkey's initial reason for blocking me was “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, and when I ask him why he did not reply to my email after arbitrarily blocking me, he evades and desists from replying and now instead he talks about “reblocking him for socking”, and “Sockpuppetry is a black/white policy’’, which shows that his alleged original reason was all fictitious and conjured up. I checked what “Sockpuppetry” meant and found out that that it meant a user having two accounts. This allegation is blasphemous. I never ever had more than one account. True, when he did not have the decency to reply to my email sent vide Wikipedia after arbitrarily misusing his privileges and blocking me for the original alleged reason, “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, I understood that this was an arbitrary and mala fide action and reverted to my NPOV edit with out logging on, but that was absolutely with out the intention to create an impression that it was some other user who was reverting the article, but only to only just circumvent his malicious and arbitrary action and show my contempt of his action. I am not constrained to log in though Wikipedia encourages users to log on; and to indulge in “Sockpuppetry”, one has to have more than one user account including username and use both the accounts as though the User was not one person. So what yarn is User:YellowMonkeynow spinning? He has just been victimizing me. Apropos the statement of User:RegentsPark that , I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”, It is strange that a person who confessed that “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies” and “Also, with almost no effort, I located a reference that places the boundary of tibet as being on the northern banks of the Karakash River” is making the allegation that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”. When --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) made the aforesaid statements, The information that , to quote User:Fowler&fowler , “the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass[8] in Kashmir”, was not provided to him. But even now he is continuing with his misrepresentation. Does he mean to say that the “renowned” Times Atlas depicted a boundary “which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”. This depiction in the year 1900 is so recent when viewed in the light of the fact that Kashmir acceded to the new Dominion of India “in its entirety”^[1] only on 26, October 1947. And, as confessed by --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. Also, his statement that, “The way I see the W H Johnson Map, the Pass appears to be at the border or just outside the border of Kashmir” only shows that he has been all along prejudiced. I have zoomed the said map viz. File:Johnson-journey-ilchi1865-mapa.jpg, manifold and confirmed that the pass is not depicted “just outside the border of Kashmir”. Just see how User:John Hill has made changes to the article on Sanju Pass. He has not discarded the information that I have added to the article. This conduct of his will hopefully pave way for a consensus. But the conduct of --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and have been the converse. Earlier RegentsPark was selectively blind , but now he claims and pretends that he does not understand my messages, though, my messages are precise and crystal clear because that is more convenient for him! And why is User:RegentsPark not taking any action whatsoever against User:Fowler&fowler for unleashing a malicious tirade against me which I have meticulously refuted and repudiated and cornered and exposed him . Is this not a behaviour not amounting to “disruptive editing’ or “disruption”as alleged by User:AdjustShift  ? Just what locus standi does User:YellowMonkey or User:AdjustShift have to comment on my edit as though they are experts on the said subject matter? If there is a just enquiry by Wikipedia into all this, all of them will be exposed and disciplined . If I need to assume good faith on your part, I would expect you to give me a precise reply to my message on the many issues that I have raised.

But please, I don’t have the time to engage in such futile conversations. Just immediately unblock me so that I can apply to Wikipeida Arbitration on the issue whether my edit in the articles Hindutash[9], Sanju Pass[10] , Aksai Chin[11] are allegedly my personal view and tantamount to POV, and what aspect of my edits allegedly are POV and also whether User:Fowler&fowler's edit of inter alia Aksai Chin which is currently being blatantly passed off as NPOV is POV and I need to be unblocked to do that , Right? Just unblock me. Hindutashravi (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need to be unblocked in order to file for Arbitration, but generally ArbCom will not accept cases until other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted, nor are they likely to look at the exact dispute in question, but rather the behaviors of those involved. So, I'd suggest you look for some mediation or third opinions first, to try to solve the issue without getting involved in an ArbCom case. As long as you give me a good indication that you will wait for and abide by the results of such dispute resolution, I would be happy to unblock you. This means that you will not edit the articles Hindutash, Sanju Pass, or Aksai Chin in any way that could be considered controversial while the dispute resolution is ongoing, and that, should consensus be against you, you will not continue to make your previous edits to those pages.

In response to the larger portion of your post, you once again are assuming bad faith on the parts of the users you mention above. It is best not to consider their motives, feelings, or intents, but rather to comment only on their actions. Should you follow this advice, you should find that it will save you quite a few disputes.

As sockpuppetry goes, editing under your IP address to evade a block on your account is a Bad Idea^TM, often resulting in a block of the IP as well, and sometimes in the extension of the block on the account. I advise against such actions, unless you are willing to accept that you are likely to become blocked indefinitely for doing so. Editing under you IP address instead of your account is also considered sockpuppetry, unless you explicitly link the two, because it serves to obfuscate who is making the edits.

I am not going to involve myself in the dispute, because I am not at all knowledgeable about the subject, and would likely do more harm than good to everyone involved. Cheers, Hindutashravi. lifebaka++ 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

AdjustShift (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The original reason for blocking me was “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, and the same is fictitious and conjured up and User:YellowMonkey has not given an explanation till date in spite of my request for clarification. He says, “Sockpuppetry is a black/white policy and no warning is needed” , when that was not at all the reason for the original block and his reply should pertain to the alleged reason for the original block and not the alleged reason for the subsequent extension of the block! . Obviously he did it arbitrarily at the instance of User:RegentsPark for no rhyme or reason. As far as the allegation of User:RegentsPark pertaining to consensus, It has been me who has been all along endeavouring for consensus, as a perusal of the discussion Page for Hindutash Talk:Hindutash as well as my talk page would establish. If at all Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler had an iota of intention to arrive at a consensus, given the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence provided by me in the articles on inter alia Hindutash[12], Sanju Pass[13] and Aksai Chin[14], the issue could have been amicably sorted out long ago. But they i.e. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been spurning my attempt all along because they just wanted to retain their POV version come what may, through hook or crook! They have been summarily reverting to their POV edit in toto with out retaining any of the information including the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence that I added. Apropos the allegation that my edit is my Personal View based on Original research and hence allegedly POV, Just immediately unblock me so that I can apply to Wikipeida Arbitration on the issue whether my edit in the articles Hindutash[15], Sanju Pass[16] , Aksai Chin[17] are allegedly my personal view and tantamount to POV, and what aspect of my edits allegedly are POV and also whether User:Fowler&fowler's edit of inter alia Aksai Chin which is currently being blatantly passed off as NPOV is POV and I need to be unblocked to do that , Right? Just unblock me. Also User:RegentsPark has not taken any action against User:Fowler&fowler for spreading a canard of lies inter alia in Talk:Sanju Pass as well as the Talk page of User:John Hill i.e. User talk:John Hill which I have refuted and had him exposed and his conduct amounts to "disruptive editing". Hindutashravi (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.

• If you choose to request further unblocking, please try to make any future requests much more concise. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now the reason shown for the block is “disruptive editing”. This block was not made in error but was willful and wanton and there was absolutely no necessity for the block at all in the first place because my edit had all the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence satisfying the policy of Wikipedia on verifiability and it was I who had all along been endeavouring for Consensus which was being spurned by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler since they could not refute the acclaimed evidence provided and took recourse to summarily reverting in toto my edit instead of appreciating my endeavour to arrive at a consensus. Even User:John Hill had agreed when I conferred with him, on the modality to arrive at a consensus since Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler were not appreciating my endeavour for consensus . In fact it can be seen from edit summaries of my reversions like the one dated 21, June 2009 which reads, “Reverted to previous NPOV edit as edited by User:DrilBot. Those indulging in vandalism and Original Research not reciprocating my attempt to arrive at consensus”, that the reason for my reverts was that inter alia User:RegentsPark and his coterie were also recklessly reverting my NPOV version with out appreciating my endeavour to arrive at a consensus and it should have been inter alia Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler who ought to have been blocked for “disruptive editing”! the block is unjustified because I have all ways been endeavouring for consensus and in future also I will endeavour for consensus but the others should be given a warning and asked to appreciate my endeavour for consensusHindutashravi (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address how you intend to change you behavior to avoid the sort of conflicts you have generated which led to your block. I will not comment on the specific nature of your dispute, except to note that the existance of sources does not allow for an exception to WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPOV, which you clearly appear to be involved in. Sources are not a club you weild to beat others into accepting your version of an article; sources need to be considered for relevence and avoid bringing WP:UNDUE weight on WP:FRINGE views of a subject, and the proper way to ajudicate these issues is via civil discourse on article talk pages, not by repeatedly, over a long time, using a sheer force of will to force others to accept your version of an article. You were blocked solely for long term tenditious editing and disruption, and not because of the politics you support. Jayron32 18:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Continuation from my two earlier requests for unblocking! An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. That is exactly what has happened to me. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been continually reverting in toto my edits spurning my request for consensus. Sorry, User:Jayron32 , I did not generate any sort of conflict. I have always respected the views of my adversaries and respected their entitlement to have their own views and I have never wielded a club to beat others into accepting my version of an article; But I can also never permit others to wield a club to beat me into accepting their POV version of an article. Please, User:Jayron32 go through Talk:Hindutash and my talk page before you come to run into conclusions, real or imaginary! It is Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler who are repeatedly, over a long time, using a sheer force of will to force me to accept their version of an article. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and no "Original Research". My edit is by no stretch of imagination a fringe view, but a legal view and a practicing lawyer can understand my edit. It is Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler who are guilty of long term tenditious editing and disruption. When I endeavour for consensus, they have to assume good faith on my part and reciprocate my endeavour, which they did not, and if my adversaries were not cantankerously indulging in slander and vilification campaign[18] against me, I would also not be hostile to them. The crux of the issue is that I was always ready to compromise my edit of the article and arrive at a consensus as a perusal of the Talk pages would reveal, but it was my aforesaid adversaries who took a rigid and inflexible stance. Many a time, I have thrown up my hands in despair. To change my "behaviour", there also needs to be a sine qua non, right User:Jayron32 ? Hindutashravi (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Your request is pinning all the disruption on others, and you're not acknowledging any improper action on your part. This is the third request to be declined in this manner; please take a step back from Wikipedia for a few days, and come back when you've calmed down some. Your talk page may be protected temporarily if you continue to post unblock requests that do not address the actions which led to your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have seen WP:NOTTHEM. In fact I have not caused any disruption. The only thing that I did was to revert to my NPOV edit in the light of the fact that inter alia the two other editors vizRegent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler were not reciprocating my attempt to arrive at a consensus. That is not disruption and in the given scenario I had no other alternative[19]. As perWP:NOTTHEM, “ It is theoretically possible that the other editors who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person”. In fact almost in each subsequent edit , I had added new information with out breaching Wikipedia’s stress on verifiability and no Original Research. User:Hersfold’s reason for declining does not acknowledge even in a small manner the fact that the other editors are also guilty of disruption and improper action. I hope that as per WP:NOTTHEM, as they have done something wrong prior to my block, they will be blocked in turn. It is not as though one editor takes all the blame in toto and the others go totally Scott Free. Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures. Rather, I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus . I will apply for Wikipeida Arbitration on the issue whether my edit in the articles Hindutash[20], Sanju Pass[21] , Aksai Chin[22] are allegedly my personal view and tantamount to POV, and what aspect of my edits allegedly are POV and also whether User:Fowler&fowler's edit of inter alia Aksai Chin which is currently being blatantly passed off as NPOV is POV and I need to be unblocked to do that. I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka . So please enlighten me of the exact nature of my alleged “disruption” and I undertake to take remedial measures. Hindutashravi (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said above, "I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus." That's all we need to hear. End of discussion. I am removing your privilege to edit this page as 4 unblock requests are enough. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Generally, after three separate admins have declined to unblock you, continuing to request unblock with the same rationale is increasingly unlikely to work. I suggest you stop at all referring to other users in your unblock requests, or you might face inability to continue posting them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please never send accusatory emails to Wikipedians. Emails with statements such as "You are willfully reading my message with a jaundiced eye." are inappropriate and will cause the email to be discarded. You have now lost the ability to send email while blocked and your 1 month block will start over. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you referred to my email as a pretext for your aforesaid action, I am reproducing the email here under for any one to peruse. It goes with out saying that I am reiterating what all I have stated in the said email which I am reproducing here. The email dated 8, August 2009 follows:

To User:Toddst1, You are willfully reading my message with a jaundiced eye. If the said editors are taking a rigid stance and point-blank rejecting my endeavour for arriving at a consensus, and are only repeating that my edit is allegedly POV, my only option is to apply for Wikipeida Arbitration on the issue whether my edit in the articles Hindutash, Sanju Pass , Aksai Chin are allegedly my personal view and tantamount to POV, and what aspect of my edits allegedly are POV and also whether User:Fowler&fowler's edit of inter alia Aksai Chin which is currently being blatantly passed off as NPOV is POV, which I intend to do and I need to be unblocked to do that. What do you mean “That's all we need to hear”? You mean that’s all I want to hear. I had also stated , “Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka” and “When I endeavour for consensus, they have to assume good faith on my part and reciprocate my endeavour, which they did not, and if my adversaries were not cantankerously indulging in slander and vilification campaign against me, I would also not be hostile to them. The crux of the issue is that I was always ready to compromise my edit of the article and arrive at a consensus as a perusal of the Talk pages would reveal, but it was my aforesaid adversaries who took a rigid and inflexible stance. Many a time, I have thrown up my hands in despair. To change my "behaviour", there also needs to be a sine qua non, but you are taking out one part of my request out of context and viewing it in isolation and ignoring my other statements to decline my request. Look User:Toddst1, All my contributions to Wikipedia are logged. So there is no point in denying something that I did do, because it can and will be checked up, so what ever I have stated can also be verified and confirmed and if you do not have the inclination or time to do that, you should not interfere, particularly when you had already rejected an earlier request. Rather your act seems to be with the intention of removing my request from the list at Category:Requests for unblock, before a bona fide Administrator could act on it. The essential fact is that I attempted for consensus which was spurned point-blank by User:Fowler&fowler and User:RegentsPark My request for consensus is in consonance with the fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia, viz. Neutral point of view which also “requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.” So I reiterate that I will have to apply for Wikipeida Arbitration on the issue whether my edit in the articles Hindutash, Sanju Pass , Aksai Chin are allegedly my personal view and tantamount to POV, and what aspect of my edits allegedly are POV and also whether User:Fowler&fowler's edit of inter alia Aksai Chin which is currently being blatantly passed off as NPOV is POV and I need to be unblocked to do that. I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka so just unblock me!Hindutashravi (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently resumed editing after a month long block and almost immediately reverted to your preferred version of Hindutash - an action that had led to your previous blocks. This is highly disruptive, and as User:AdjustShift noted at ANI prior to your previous block, continued disrution is likely to result in a indefinite block from wikipedia. Please do not go down that path. I would suggest that you

• Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article.
• If you cannot gain agreement at the article talk page, start an RFC to gain outside input.

I repeat: please do not revert the Hindutash article, or make potentially contentious changes to it, without first establishing clear consensus to do so, else you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term and continued disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash despite multiple blocks and warnings. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have blocked you indefinitely since you ignored the explicit warning above and continued to revert to your preferred version of the Hindutash article, without first establishing consensus. I am willing to unblock you one last time, if you undertake to follow the editing conditions outlined above. If that is not agreeable to you, you are free to ask for a review of this block by posting an {{unblock}} request. Abecedare (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is an irrefutable and incontrovertible fact that Abecedare has blocked me when I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus with John Hill in a content dispute. The issue pertains to the Hindutash pass which I reiterate is a part of Kashmir and the view of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark is that the pass is allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”. Since they are taking a rigid and entrenched stance and were just not willing to appreciate or reciprocate my endeavour for consensus and wanted their point of view version to be retained by hook or crook, they are obsessed with the desire to have me blocked in Wikipedia and they are using their influence, and getting administrators to block me . Even The “ Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” before the accession of Kashmir to the new dominion of India. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety”. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. Abecedare wants me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. I was agreeable and told him that the same should also be applicable to the other side and in order to arrive at a consensus, the article should strictly commence with a neutral version which neither stated that the Pass was situate in Kashmir nor Chinese Turkistan. But Abecedare is not agreeing to this just and reasonable proposition. He simply just wants me just to succumb and capitulate to their preferred version. I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors, and that too when the only endeavour for Consensus has come from my side and Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark have been cantankerously spurning it all along! No one does it and no one is expected to do it. Every editor first makes changes in an article and only then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! That is what Wikipedia is all about. Since the issue pertaining to the territorial extent of Kashmir is legal and both the Constitution of Kashmir as well as the Constitution of India determine the territorial extent of Kashmir and the Constitution in India is sacrosanct and supreme , I as a Lawyer myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian lawyers like NJA for their third opinions but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for consensus.Hindutashravi (talk) 3:38 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

This request is far too verbose. Please distill this request to something concise and to the point. The wall of text below is similarly daunting. —DoRD (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Abecedare has blocked me for the alleged reason of causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash when I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus with John Hill in a content dispute. The issue pertains to the Hindutash pass. I created this article and Fowler&fowler has been trying to hijack and usurp it . I reiterate that Hindutash is a part of Kashmir and the view of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark is that the pass is allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”. Since they are taking a rigid and entrenched stance and were just not willing to appreciate or reciprocate my endeavour for consensus and wanted their point of view version to be retained by hook or crook, they are obsessed with the desire to have me blocked in Wikipedia and they are using their influence, and getting administrators to block me . Abecedare wants me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. I was in fact agreeable and told him that the same should also be applicable to the other side and to arrive at a consensus, the article should strictly commence with a neutral version in consonance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which neither stated that the Pass was situate in Kashmir nor Chinese Turkistan. But Abecedare is just not agreeing to this just and reasonable proposition for reasons best known to him! He simply just wants me just to succumb and capitulate to their preferred version. Despite my efforts he has not substantiated his alleged reasons for blocking me. I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”. I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors, and that too when the only endeavour for Consensus has come from my side and Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark have been cantankerously spurning it all along! No one does it and no one is expected to do it. Every editor first makes changes in an article and only then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! That is what Wikipedia is all about. Since an administrator, DoRD says that my earlier “request” is “far too verbose”. I have redrafted it to something concise and to the point. A neutral and bona fide administrator is required to verify the many issues that I have raised , particularly since every thing is logged in Wikipedia rather than decline for some extraneous reason or the other! Hindutashravi (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return. You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request, but if I understand you correctly, you've decided not to accept that condition. That's fine, but it does mean that you won't be unblocked at this time. You're not correct to say that it's an unreasonable condition; getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hindutashravi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been allegedly blocked “for long-term and continued disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash”. I am denying and refuting Abecedare’s allegations. But he has not substantiated his allegations. There are different aspects to causing disruption . Let Abecedare say how and in what manner I caused disruption since every thing is logged in Wikipedia. If I continued to revert to my preferred version of the Hindutash article, without first establishing consensus, it is not my fault because my adversaries were neither reciprocating my endeavour for consensus nor appreciating my endeavour and they were taking a rigid and entrenched stance and they were also summarily reverting to their preferred version without first establishing consensus . This is some thing that is borne out by records as every thing is logged! Summarizing what I have stated, I am refuting and denying Abecedare’s allegation that I caused disruption. The onus is on those who are making the assertion, to prove that I caused disruption. Abecedare has blocked me when I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus with John Hill in a content dispute. The issue pertains to the Hindutash pass which I reiterate is a part of Kashmir and the view of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark is that the pass is allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”. and wanted their point of view version to be retained by hook or crook, they are obsessed with the desire to have me blocked in Wikipedia and they are using their influence, and getting administrators to block me . Even The “ Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” before the accession of Kashmir to the new dominion of India. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety”. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” When I asked him, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information” "and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source!”, he does not at all respond.Hindutashravi (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I received your email with the arguments for why you believe that Hindutash is in Kashmir (rather than in China) but I am not interested in entering into that content discussion. As I have said above, I am willing to unblock you if you accept the stated editing restrictions. If that is acceptable to you, please say so here. Alternatively, you are free to contest the block using the {{unblock}} template. Rearguing the content dispute here, or through email is not going to be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeable to the aforesaid editing restrictions provided the same applies to Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , User:Fowler&fowler and their coterie. In the version that is now there, all references to Hindutash and other places in Kashmir being allegedly in so-called Xinjiang allegedly in China should be removed, including the Info box. This entails very minor edits, and the Sanju Pass article created by User:John Hill , also initially similarly did not state that the pass was situate in India. And the article should just simply state that the pass is in the Kuen Lun range in Asia. Starting from that version, all the parties should sincerely work towards consensus. I suggest that you make the aforesaid changes to the article yourself! Right? Read, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: “ All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. [[23]]Now you show your good faith and bona fides by responding positively to my reply!Hindutashravi (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of cabalism in your unblock request is not helpful to your case. If you agree to the conditions I listed above, without any additional clauses or caveats, I will unblock you. Then you are free to discuss the issue on the article talk page, and convince other editors that the changes you propose are appropriate. However, if you revert the article to your preferred versions, or to the version you suggest in your comment above, you will be blocked again indefinitely - with no more "last chance" options. Let me know if that is agreeable to you. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I will not revert to my preferred version. But to arrive at a consensus, the beginning should not commence from one extreme view. That Hindutash is allegedly in so called “Xinjiang” in “China”, but should commence from a version which is acceptable to all the parties and not the preferred version of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler . That version is not my preferred version! But you should also see that what ever you are accusing me of doing is being done with impunity by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler. Show me where they have attempted for a consensus? All my contributions to Wikipedia are logged. So there is no point in denying something that I did do, because it can and will be checked up, so also what ever I have stated about Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler can also be verified and confirmed. So simply you just want me just to succumb and capitulate to their preferred version. User:Fowler&fowler is back after he made sweeping statements which were clearly established by me as misrepresentations and lies[[24]and he was exposed. He could not refute them, and now he is back, to his unscrupulous ways by stating “rv vandalism by irredentist troll” in his edit summary. You should take action against him for Disruptive editing. By the way my email was not just about my arguments for why I “believe that Hindutash is in Kashmir”. So after blocking me you have to atleast read my communications properly!

You should also similarly notice that Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have all along reverted to their preferred version of Hindutash. This is highly disruptive. You block them also. Please ask them to not go down that path. For your information, I had already proposed ways to arrive at a consensus at Talk:Hindutash and waited for general agreement , but they point blank spurned it . The same proposal of mine subsists even now. But as long as they remain stubborn and insist that the place is allegedly in so called “Xinjiang” in “China”, I also have no other alternative but to reiterate that the Hindutash is in Ladakh in Kashmir. Just search the word “consensus” at Talk:Hindutash. You will find it present 15 times, all used by me! Neither Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowlerhave ever used it! For your perusal, I will reproduce (copy and paste) my endeavour for consensus which I have repeated many times.

“In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that User:Fowler&fowlerdoes is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir. And that the northern border of Kashmir has not been demarcated or delineated. And leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. That is the only consensus that can be arrived at, if you intention is to arrive at a consensus. I know that truth is a casualty in case of a consensus, but I cannot do any thing about that. The rest of my version remains, including the original findings of W.H. Johnson’s survey. And the quotations from the Gazetteer of Kashmir also remains. Those are not my opinion but extracts from the references and citations. Fowler&fowler cannot be permitted to rewrite the article to suit his whims and fancies.”

As for my reiteration that Hindutash is part of Kashmir, I will summarize the basis for my reiteration that Hindutash is part of Kashmir.

1. Hindutash is geographically part of the highlands of Kashmir and is geographically part of Kashmir and has nothing to do with East Turkistan.

2. The fact that Hindutash is part of India is historically accepted and conceded by the East Turkistani nationals themselves who have named the pass Hindutash which literally means Indian Stone.

3. “The findings of W.H. Johnson’s 1865 survey, perhaps the only survey done in the area established certain important points”. "Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun in Ladakh ), thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range". Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was “within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir” and an integral part of the territory of Kashmir. "He noted where the Chinese boundary post was accepted. At Yangi Langar, three marches from Khotan, he noticed that there were a few fruit trees at this place which originally was a post or guard house of the Chinese"

4. The Map pertaining to the Survey by W.H. Johnson in 1865 File:Johnson-journey-ilchi1865-mapa.jpg also unequivocally depicts Hindutash and Sanju Passes as part of Kashmir.

5. Hindutash is listed as a place in Kashmir in the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak as early as in 1890. The Gazetteer states inter alia in pages 520 and 364 that, “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan, and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, crossed in 1865 by Johnson, and the Hindutak ( Hindutash ) Diwan, crossed by Robert Schlagentweit in 1857”.

6. The corroborative evidence: The practical authority of the Chinese, as Ney Elias British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, and Younghusband consistently maintained, "had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately following their return". Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they considered their line of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond the mountains” i.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir wherein the Hindutash pass is situate.

7. Even The “ Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety”.

8. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. But he does not have the integrity to even abide by his own statements when the same is not convenient for him.

9. The findings of W.H. Johnson’s first hand survey on the limits of the Chinese Jurisdiction in Khotan territory is not disputed by any present day scholar and have been approved unanimously by all modern(present time) scholars writing on the subject like inter alia Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, in their book “Himalayan Battleground” at Pg. 116, “that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range” or according to Dorothy Woodman, in the book Himalayan Frontiers “W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points”. "Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun range in Ladakh ), thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range". Thus there absolutely is no uncertainty. According to Dorothy Woodman, “the map ( pertaining to the Survey by W.H. Johnson in 1865 ) indicates that even in 1865 that area (wherein Hindutash and Sanju are situate) was part of India and that the customary boundary was well known”.

10. When Kashmir acceded to the new dominion of India in its entirety , Kashmir admittedly had a territorial extent. That territorial extent has been explicitly described in both the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir ( in that respect, luckily Kashmir has a Constitution) . Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states, “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State" , and what constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”. The Legal position is that the territorial extent by no means can be legally altered with out amending the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir, and that is irrespective of the fact that the present Government of India allegedly or purportedly does not claim Hindutash and Sanju. More over, there has never been any border agreement, even one which is ab initio illegal and null and void, under duress and coercion, ceding an area of Kashmir to the Chinese and demarcating or delineating the northern border of Kashmir. As stated by Emma Nicholson, in her letter dated 22, May 2007 to the Ambassador, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the European Union the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” on October 26, 1947 was “in its entirety[25]" The report on Kashmir of Baroness Emma Nicholson, as a matter of fact inter alia relies on an official 1909 map of Kashmir which inter alia depicts the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut as Part of Kashmir as well as the correspondence of the Maharaja of Kashmir dated October 26 , 1947 with Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India which states that the state of Kashmir has a common boundary with the “Soviet Republic”, to determine the fact that inter alia Gilgit and Kanjut (which includes the Raskam , Hunza valley and Taghdumbash) are integral parts of Kashmir, and does not rely on the post 1954 maps published by the Survey of India at the behest of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru had also made a similar statement[26] that "as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 'China'". When the Chinese encroached into Kashmir in 1892 and illegally placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in Kashmir along with a board which stated that “this board is under the sway of the Kakan, the Chinese Emperor, “the distance was taken from the Shahidulla out post ,virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range and commanding the Kuen Lun Range, Raja Sir Amar Singh in his letter of 2 November,” described this action as ‘a transgression of Khatais (Cathays ) over the Ladakh boundary. The Kashmir State has no intention of making any encroachment on foreign territory, but I hope you and the Government of India will enable (i.e. assist) it to maintain the territory already acquired and in its possession, and in that case, the unlawful aggression of the Khatais must be repelled , and the original boundary restoured”. The Wazir Wazart of Ladakh, complained to the Vice- President of the Jammu –Kashmir State Council of the Chinese Amban who had constructed the Pillar. The Wazir said that as far as he had been able to ascertain, his own frontier was considered upto Shahidulla, 16 stages from Ladakh, where one of his predecessors had built a fort which was still standing. This proved, he added “the state frontier extends to that place". The Chinese equivalent of the Kashmiri out post of Shahidulla commanding the Kashmiri side of the Kuen Lun range, were the out posts of Yangi Langar and Brinjga commanding the Khotani side of the Kuen Lun range.

11. The Map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914, a legal document, depicts the southern border of Khotan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line. The map was initialed by the British representative and signed by the Tibetan and Chinese representatives. The latter two did not merely initial the Convention but signed it.

So my proposal for a consensus is pending even now and it is for them to appreciate my endeavour and respond positively. So unblock me and also warn them to cooperate with me so that the issue can be sorted out amicably. The ball is in their Court. If they respond positively, I will also respond positively. I am trying to enter into a dialogue with John Hill for arriving at a consensus, and will also try other means, but these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for arriving at a consensus.Hindutashravi (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:John Hill : Apropos your statement, “the Chinese have been active, off and on, and to a greater or lesser degree, in these mountains for over two thousand years. Since at least the late 1st century CE these mountain regions fell under Chinese control (after taking them over from the Xiongnu), but they didn't control them for long”, when you say “in these mountains” you mean the Eastern Turkistan region, where as I am here concerned about the Kuen Lun area of Kashmir. Again Your statement, “Now, over the past 2,000 years India in the wider sense (including Kashmir) has only made a very brief, tenuous and contended claim over the region with only a minimal degree of control or military presence” is again nothing but your point of view and your Original Research and is not supported by verifiability and corroborative evidence, so, I reiterate again, if you insist on stating that “India in the wider sense (including Kashmir) has only made a very brief, tenuous and contended claim over the region with only a minimal degree of control or military presence”, the same has already been rebutted by me in the information provided in the Sanju Pass article which you have retained. Also the wealth of information that I have provided on the territorial extent of Kanjut (for which one would deserve a “barn star”!), which you have also noticed, are ample evidence that your aforesaid statements just incorrect and are your Point Of View. Insofar as the Kuen Lun range is concerned, the Chinese were never in the picture till the English invited and inducted them in just because of their perceived threat from the Russian Empire! Besides the East Turkistan area itself has historically been Indian and Indian religions languages and culture like Kharosthi, Samskrit, Prakrit, Pali flourished and were prevalent there. The region was part of India during the Kushan period and also Khotan just nort of the Sanju and Hindutash passes in Kashmir was part of India during the period of the Mauryas and Ashoka.

Now, coming to the second part of your reply, do you realise that your act of retaining what ever information that I provided in the Sanju Pass article has precluded the ability of inter alia Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler to delete the acclaimed information added by me in the article like they have been doing to the Hindutash article, reverting to their preferred version of Hindutash. Apropos your statement, “So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair an neutral a manner as possible. Heavily supporting one side….”, I am intrigued that you are stating this as though you do not understand what I have informed you! I do not need to repeat what I previously informed you about my agreeability for consensus and the same need not be repeated again. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have after spurning my endeavour for consensus, again blocked me since they do not want me to engage in a discussion on the issue whatsoever with bona fide editors and arrive at a consensus. Hindutashravi (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Hinutashravi: You have just written a long email to me and asked me to reply here on your Talk Page which is why I am writing here now. Now, first, thank you for pointing out that I forgot to sign my last note on the Talk:Hindutash page. Although it was clearly from me (especially as I made reference in it to my new book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome), I have now signed and dated it.

In your email to me you sound very angry and upset about being blocked by administrators. I have had no input into their decisions - so please take it up with them - not me. You also make some rather accusatory remarks to me: "You say that after the publication of your book, you are busy and have no time to edit the article on Hindutash, but I have seen that you have had time for other work in Wikipedia! So are you being honest with me?"

This is a false claim. I never said I would have "no time to edit the article" - what I actually said was: "Also, I am going to be too busy in the weeks ahead to spend much time on it." And, in the period immediately after my book was published, I did indeed spend far less time on the Wikipedia than is usual for me. So please withdraw your accusations.

Now, to cut to the point - you claim above that the information you gave in the article on Hunza (princely state)- "(for which one would deserve a “barn star”!)" really has nothing to say about the Hindutash Pass (and I certainly wouldn't be giving you a barnstar for that information which seems very tenuous and weak - but as far as I am concerned you are welcome to award one to yourself). As far as I can see it only refers to territories as far north as Bazar Dara which is south of the pass. Moreover - this refers to territory possibly controlled at one time by a then independent state, Hunza - not India, and so would seem irrelevant to me here.

You also claim that India controlled this region during the region of the Mauryas and Ashoka. Please supply evidence for this claim - I have never seen any.

Then you go on to claim that Khotan was part of Indian territory during the Kushan period. There is absolutely no proof of this (unless you know of something I don't). In fact, the opposite holds true - and it is clear that China controlled Khotan for much of this period (at other times it was under the control of the Xiongnu and at others independent). Certainly, the Kushans did invade the region in 90 CE, but were defeated by the Chinese and had to withdraw as may be seen in the following passage from pp. 127 and 597 of my book respectively:

"In this same month [between 16th June and 15th July, 90 CE.], the Yuezhi sent a viceroy at the head of an army of 70,000 troops to attack Ban Chao, but they were finally forced to retire after an unsuccessful campaign in which they were out-manoeuvred by the Chinese general. See Appendix N; Chavannes (1907), p. 158, n. 4, and the ‘Biography of Ban Chao,’ Chavannes (1906), pp. 232-233."

"In the 5th month of the 2nd Yongyuan year (i.e. between 16th June and 15th July, 90 CE), Ban Chao outwitted the 70,000 strong Yuezhi/Kushan army sent against him under a viceroy named Xie (副王謝 Fuwang Xie). Ban Chao used a “scorched-earth policy” and managed to ambush a contingent sent by the Kushan viceroy to Kucha for help, seized all the gifts they were carrying for the king of Kucha, and beheaded several hundred of them, displaying their heads to discourage the Kushans, who then withdrew. See note 1.36 and Chavannes (1907), p. 158, n. 4, and (1906), pp. 232-233."

You also make the unsupported claim that: "Insofar as the Kuen Lun range is concerned, the Chinese were never in the picture till the English invited and inducted them in just because of their perceived threat from the Russian Empire!"

I am afraid to say that this is just rubbish as a close reading of my translation from the Hou Hanshu and my notes would prove. Instead of making wild claims like this I think you should really check the sources. Until you do that, and properly reference your claims, I do not wish to continue this rather unhappy discussion with you. You seem to want to continue to make a personal territorial claim on behalf of India, which nation has never to my knowledge, made such a claim. I do not understand either your arguments or your the motivations behind this personal claim of yours. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your email, which concluded with:

If you do not either unblock me or refute with evidence what ever I have stated in my messages dated 23, October and about the nefarious conduct of Regent’s Park and Fowler&fowler which are all based on records and are logged, I will have to do what is necessary with out logging in, and then you will have an excuse to accuse me of sock puppetry and what not!

As I said before, I am ready to unblock you if you accept the listed editing restrictions, without any additional conditions or caveats. However, if you use sock accounts as you have threatened, the offer will no longer stand and I doubt any other admin will be willing to unblock you either. As usual, you are also free to appeal your block by using an {{unblock}}. I will prefer any future conversations to take place on this talk page, and not through emails.
PS: I have not quoted your complete email, because that would be a copyright violation. You, of course, are free to quote it in full here, for anyone to review it. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again your reply is evasive and willfully ignores the many issues that I raised. That only shows your mens rea! Apart from that, as though your deliberate act of ignoring the issues that I raised in my message is not outrageous enough, you indulge in misrepresentation. What I had stated was that I needed to log in to complain against you for misuse of administrative privileges and for supporting one faction against another in an issue of content dispute, and if I could not log in to complain against you because of the block, then I would have to do it with out logging in. I did not say that I would with out logging in edit an article or even discuss with a user in his or her Talk page or the discussion page of the concerned article for inter alia arriving at a consensus so as to be accused of sock puppetry , but solely for registering my complaint against you if you do not see reason and unblock me, since I did try to log in at the appropriate page for registering my complaint against you for the aforesaid reasons but was unable to do so! I had to email you because all this while my message to you in my talk page was ignored and when I sent you an email, you immediately gave some sort of a “reply” albeit evasive. I find it amazing that an administrator can make sweeping statements with out having to substantiate it with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged, and then get away with it and actually block an editor without substantiating his assertion . If AdjustShift (talk) states, “After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption”, he has the moral duty and responsibility to substantiate his allegation with evidence that is borne out by records, Right? He cannot be permitted to get away with that, Right? After reading his arbitrary and unilateral statement, all that I see is misrepresentation misrepresentation and more misrepresentation!

After my email dated 21.10 .2009, You wrote a message in my talk page misrepresenting that my email contained “arguments for why you believe that Hindutash is in Kashmir” and that I was allegedly rearguing the content dispute , when as matter of fact, my “arguments for why you believe that Hindutash is in Kashmir” was only a small portion of my email to you and it was convenient for you to ignore the rest of my message to you since you know that what I have stated there is the truth and therefore you had to take recourse to suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. I had sent you a new massage dated 23 October clarifying that my email was not my “arguments for why you believe that Hindutash is in Kashmir” or an attempt to reargue the content dispute and inter alia narrated about the nefarious conduct of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowlerand asked you to have the decency of reading my communication properly and reply properly atleast after blocking me and I had also reproduced the contents of my email in my talk page . But you have not bothered to even reply to my message. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have never discussed the article with me and convinced me that the changes they propose are appropriate before making the changes to the preferred version of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler, and all the endeavour for consensus has come only from my side and it is my version which is supported by verifiability and corroborative evidence. They have never endeavored to arrive at consensus with me. Regent's Park (Rose Garden)has the audacity to say, “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article” after spurning all my attempt to arrive at a consensus. Refute me here if you can with evidence that is borne from the records! Every thing is logged. I am also unable to correspond with bona fide editors to arrive at a consensus due to the block. Again, I know that Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have after spurning my endeavour for consensus, again blocked me since they do not want me to engage in a discussion on on the issue whatsoever with bona fide editors and arrive at a consensus. This is some sort of a racket here! I have given you enough time and now I have the right to complain against you for misuse of administrative privileges and your blatant support of one side in a content dispute , and I have to log in to do that . So, remember there is no point in denying something that I did do, because it can and will be checked up, so also what ever I have stated about Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler can also be verified and confirmed. If you do not either unblock me or refute with evidence borne from the records what ever I have stated in my messages dated 23, October and about the nefarious conduct of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler l that is borne out by records and are logged, I will have to do what is necessary with out logging in, and then you will have an excuse to accuse me of sock puppetry and what not!Hindutashravi (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, my reply to your reply pertained to your statement, “So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other…..Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia”. So, please focus on that issue and do not go astray! I am currently blocked and after my block is undone and severe punitive action is taken against these administrators, I can discuss topics like Khotan or India’s Kushan Empire and Mauryan Empire in the respective discussion pages of the said articles. I will reproduce the crucial relevant second paragraph of my email:

“Coming to the second part of your reply, be honest and tell me who has been and is standing in the way of the neutral, fair and accurate version of the article. And who is insisting in heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other, and who has been endeavouring for consensus all along right from the beginning, and was there even an iota of attempt by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler to attempt to arrive at a consensus or even reciprocate my endeavour for consensus? Every thing is Logged and your reply should be one that is borne out by records. So, please don't misrepresent and come out with the truth”.

But you have evaded the issue totally! Right?

Apropos my statement, “Also the wealth of information that I have provided on the territorial extent of Kanjut (for which one would deserve a “barn star”!), which you have also noticed, are ample evidence that your aforesaid statements just incorrect and are your Point Of View”, but for the fact that inter alia both Raskam and Hindutash are part of Kashmir, my edit of Kanjut has nothing to do with the article on Hindutash and “One” would certainly deserve a barn star for the said contributions in the Kanjut article. As for your statement, “As far as I can see it only refers to territories as far north as Bazar Dara which is south of the pass”, what do you mean by “south of the pass”. Which pass? Again you seem to be confused. Bazar Dara has nothing to do with the Hindutash pass and is not situate to the south of the Hindutash pass and is in a different part of Kashmir and is a river whose headwaters originate in the crests of the Kuen Lun range and meet the Raskam river south of the Kukalang Pass in Kanjut.

Again please do not make the untrue statement that, “ You also make the unsupported claim that: "Insofar as the Kuen Lun range is concerned, the Chinese were never in the picture till the English invited and inducted them in just because of their perceived threat from the Russian Empire!". My statement is supported. Please read my original reply to you before you make such unwarranted statements which will only undermine you! With the Chinese blatant occupation of inter alia East Turkistan and Tibet being supported by persons like you, like the Beothuk, both inter alia the East Turkistanis and the Tibetans will be hounded to extinction in their own countries!

I do not know what you mean when you state, “translation from the Hou Hanshu and my notes”. Are you referring to your book? If so, I have to confess that I do not have the least intention to rush to a book shop to get a copy of your book! But my sources are acclaimed. Here again is a contradiction in you message. You first accuse me of making an “unsupported claim” and then state “really check the sources”! There is an antique Chinese map on the southern limits of their empire in the Central Asia and the said map is reproduced in the Government of India Publication, viz. The Atlas of the Northern Frontiers of India at Pg.20 . This book is included under the caption “Notes” in my edit of Hindutash. If you peruse the map, you will see that the southern most extent of their knowledge and jurisdiction is only the northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range!

Apropos your statement, “you sound very angry and upset about being blocked by administrators. I have had no input into their decisions - so please take it up with them - not me”, my problem is that I am unable to! I tried to elicit an answer from User:lifebaka on the issue of who had been endeavouring for consensus and who had been spurning it and was guilty of “disruptive editing”,and the conduct of User:YellowMonkey but she just like you evaded the issue. She said , “I am not going to involve myself in the dispute, because I am not at all knowledgeable about the subject, and would likely do more harm than good to everyone involved” as though I had asked her to adjudicate on the issue that Hindutash is part of Kashmir and all that I had suggested to her was to, since my activities and the activities of the said administrators and editors like Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler were logged, find out (if she did not really already know) who was guilty of “disruptive editing”, and all that I had stated in my message to User:lifebaka regarding the nefarious conduct of the administrators and editors including User:YellowMonkey was borne out by records and are logged. But never the less she comes back again to advice me with out first replying to the issues that I had raised.

In my email, I had stated, “….These people should be made to apologise to me and their status as administrator should be rescinded . Amazingly, all of them willfully evaded the issue of who had been all along endeavouring for consensus and who spurned the endeavour, but took recourse to making unsubstantiated, arbitrary false counter allegations which can be easily disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as every thing is logged…”! Take the conduct of User:Toddst1 from his statement, “"I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus." That's all we need to hear. End of discussion”. He has willfully misrepresented my statement as though I had meant that I would not endeavour for consensus with even persons who did not point blank spurn my attempt to arrive at a consensus. Or the Conduct of Abecedare who has for obvious reasons best known to him, after blocking me for allegedly disruption, in spite of the fact that I repeatedly asked him to substantiate his claim with evidence that is borne out by records not replied on that issue. Nor has he replied to my assertion that all the endeavour for consensus came only from my side and Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and Fowler&fowler in fact only spurned it.

Actually, it is statements like, “especially as I had feared an argument from you know who” which is disruptive. Is User:Toddst1 going to block the author of the said statement? It would not even be that bad if the statement had been rather “especially as I had feared an argument from User:Hindutashravi , but by stating, “you know who”, you hurt me. It certainly does not behove a person who claims to be the author of an academic work to make such statements!

So, I reiterate please focus on that issue in your reply and do not go astray!Hindutashravi (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the expiry of the previous block, I was in the process of attempting to arrive at a consensus as can be seen from my message to John Hill but you are blatantly supporting RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in a content dispute and at the instance of RegentsPark again blocked me for alleged “long-term and continued disruption”. Though I had again and again sought an explanation from you and asked asked you to substantiate it, you have till date evaded. You want me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors, and that too when the only endeavour for Consensus has come from my side and RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler have been cantankerously spurning it all along! No one does it and no one is expected to do it. Every editor first makes changes in an article and only then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! What is important and necessary is that after an editor has made changes to an article, he or she discusses the changes in the discussion page of the relevant article if there is any objection from other editors and there is a honest genuine, sincere attempt to arrive at a consensus if there are editors who disagree to the changes by discussion. The conduct of John Hill is a case in point. Unlike the conduct of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit of inter alia Hindutash , Sanju Pass, and Aksai Chin in toto, John Hill in his edit of Sanju Pass, retained most of the information which I had added to Sanju Pass which were acclaimed information from sources and not at all my Point of View or original research. However, he did not similarly for reasons best known to him, retain the information which I had added to the article on Hindutash which I had incidentally created and was proud of. I had sent a message to him stating that he should similarly retain the information which I had added to the Hindutash and thus assist in trying to settle this "silly dispute now". He did not give a positive reply but on the contrary stated, “So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other…..Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia”. Since I had already explained to him that I had always been endeavouring for consensus, and actually the only endeavour for consensus had come from my side, I was indignant and sought an explanation from him on this particular statement of his. I left a message dated 26 October 2009 to him in my discussion page since I was blocked and could not use his discussion page or the discussion page of Hindutash Talk:Hindutash . Since he did not respond to my message, I sent him an email on 15 , December wherein I informed him that there was a message for him in my Talk Page and asked him to explain his statement. He has in his reply dated 15, December 2009 totally evaded the issue that I had raised but instead, he has made changes to the article on the Sanju pass and discarded the acclaimed information that I had add to the Sanju Pass article which he had earlier retained. He has not sought for consensus before he made this major changes in the article but has simply given the alleged reasons in the discussion page of Sanju Pass for his act of discarding all the acclaimed information that I had added. He has not sought for my consent before he made the changes for what ever extraneous reasons, though he very well knew that I am the aggrieved party. My point is that John Hill is well within his rights to do it. He knew very well when he discarded the acclaimed information that I had added , that I will be annoyed by his act. He also knew that since I am blocked, I cannot edit the article myself and undo his changes and make my own changes in the article. But the crucial point is he is well within his rights to do it, just as I am well within my rights to undo his arbitrary and unilateral changes and make my own changes in the article on Sanju Pass. The important thing is what transpires subsequently and how both the sides behave subsequently i.e. will both the sides discuss the issue peacefully and in a cultured manner and endeavour to arrive at a consensus? And that is the crucial point. The crux of the issue is that In my case, I have always been endeavouring for consensus. This is something that can be verified and established with evidence which is borne out of records since all my activity in Wikipedia is logged. That’s why I have been again and again demanding that since you accuse me of “long-term and continued disruption” and my alleged unwillingness to arrive at a consensus,and you have blocked me for for that reason, you should substantiate the allegation with evidence that is borne out of records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia. You have a duty to do it since you have reprehensively blocked me and particularly when I had been conferring with John Hill to arrive at a consensus! But you have for obvious reasons deliberately evaded from substantiating your allegations. I therefore call upon you to immediately substantiate your allegations and deny if you credibly can, my assertion and reiteration that I had been always been endeavouring for consensus and as a matter of fact, RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler have been spurning it, with evidence that is borne out from records. Other wise you should see reason and unblock me and apologise for your action of misusing your privileges as an administrator. By the way, I have seen Fowler&fowler’s statement that, “or the opposers were snuffed out by RegentsPark's goon squad before they reached the polling booth. :) If it is the latter, please let me know; I might need that muscle on some problem pages myself”. So, this is his Modus operandi all along , Right? And You have been a party to his nefarious modus operandi. As stated earlier, I need to complain against you for blatantly misusing your privileges as an administrator , particularly when I was in the process of conferring with another editor for arriving at a consensus, and I need to be unblocked for that. So you are required to un block me.Hindutashravi (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received your latest email. As I have said several times before, I am willing to block you if you accept the conditions outlined above. Just to be clear: the conditions will also apply to other articles where you have had previous disputes, such as Sanju Pass etc. If the conditions are not acceptable, you are free to use the {{unblock}} template to ask for another admin to review your block - although I doubt anyone would be willing to unblock you given your failure to understand the problem with your editing, and continued accusations of bad faith against other editors and admins. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. You are required to reply to my message in my talk page and my email was just to intimate you that there is a new message for you in my discussion page. Since you are accusing me of disruption, you are required to substantiate it with evidence that is borne out by records since all my activity in Wikipedia is logged. So this is again your “reply” to my message totally evading from replying in any manner to the issue that I raised and my repeated queries. Just shows your mens rea ! If you are stating, “given your failure to understand the problem with your editing”, you are ipso facto all the more required to explain and substantiate your allegation against me of , “long-term and continued disruption”. Which you have not and are evading in spite of my repeated requests in ways more than one! As a lawyer, I very well understand the problem with the editing of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark. You are first required to explain and substantiate your allegations with evidence that is borne out by records since every thing is logged and only after that say, “given your failure to understand the problem with your editing”, and not before that, and I most certainly did not ask for your opinion for you to state , “although I doubt anyone would be willing to unblock you”. It is shameless and despicable on your part to say that after deliberately and willfully evading my queries and the issues that I have repeatedly raised! Yes, I am free to use the {{unblock}} template to ask for another admin to review the block, just as,to quote Fowler&fowler, “RegentsPark's goon squad” which obviously includes you , are free to snuff out bona fide administrators “before before they reached the” relevant page,“Category:Requests for unblock”, by removing my request from the list in the said page before a bona fide Administrator could act on it. . First , I was blocked on the basis of a canard of brazen lies stated shamelessly in “Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents”. RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” as though he was a scholar on the issue when he had himself confessed that,“I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies” and he had neither the locus standi or capability to speak on the subject. Again, AdjustShift states that, “After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption” and , YellowMonkey’s statement that I am allegedly “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway”,is also a blatant lie. Besides, he states, “he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking”. You can notice that he has cunningly not stated his original reason for blocking me but only stated about the subsequent alleged reason for reblocking “for socking”, which ipso facto shows that the earlier reason just did not exist, but was just conjured up just to victimize me at the behest of RegentsPark! And there had been a conspiracy to build up and foist a case on me. These unilateral , arbitrary and unsubstantiated statements were made with out giving me an opportunity to refute them before they “resolved” to block me. Had I been online and participated in the said deliberations, I could have easily nipped each and every of their allegations in the bud! They shall yet be made accountable. Now coming to the alleged reasons given by Toddst1, Hersfold, and Jayron32, Toddst1 has stated that "Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons”, which is a lie because I had explicitly stated what needed to be stated. Jayron32’s statement that , "This does not address how you intend to change you behavior to avoid the sort of conflicts you have generated which led to your block” is also preposterous since it was RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler who have to change their behaviour and avoid the sort of conflicts they have generated, and they were the ones who are guilty of WP:EDITWAR and contravening WP:NPOV, given their blatant refusal to agree for a compromise and consensus. Hersfold’s statement, “Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Your request is pinning all the disruption on others, and you're not acknowledging any improper action on your part” is also preposterous and cannot be countenanced in the light of the aforesaid facts. Rather their act of declining to unblock seems to be with the intention of quickly removing my request from the list at “Category:Requests for unblock”. You are required to reply separately to these 7 queries with evidence that is borne out by records:

1. In what manner have I caused disruption?

2. Who has been all along endeavouring for consensus?

3. Who spurned the endeavour for consensus and did not in good faith reciprocate the endeavour for consensus?

4. Was there even an iota of attempt on the part of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to arrive at a consensus rather than taking an entrenched stance and continually reverting in toto to their preferred POV version?

5. Was there an iota of attempt on the part of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring ?

6. Why does it not occur to you from evidence that is borne out by records that it is Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark who are guilty of Edit warring in limine?

7. Why does it not occur to you from evidence that is borne out by records and in the light of the aforesaid reasons that it is Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark who are guilty of disruption in limine? Hindutashravi (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of the email sent to Abecedare on 11,January and 22,January 2010 follows:

After blocking me you are required to reply to my question pertaining to your alleged reasons for blocking me. You just cannot and will not be permitted to evade my questions. Since you have been continually willfully evading from stating your alleged reasons, I have listed 7 questions which you are required to answer one by one separately with evidence which is borne out by records as every thing is logged!

P.S. The 7 questions are obviously not in this email but in my talk page

So, please do not attempt to misrepresent like you did before. Hindutashravi (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule you link to requires the blocking administrator to inform you of why you are blocked. It does not require the blocking administrator to answer lists of questions, however, nor does it require that you must be unblocked if the blocking administrator doesn't answer a list of questions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did as a matter of fact accept Abecedare's proposal. So it is wrong for you to say that I declined his offer. I was agreeable and told him that the same should also be applicable to the other side and in order to arrive at a consensus, the article should strictly commence with a neutral version which neither stated that the Pass was situate in Kashmir nor Chinese Turkistan. But Abecedare is not agreeing to this just and reasonable proposition. I required Abecedare to substantiate the allegation that I was against consensus and disruptive since he had blocked me indefinitely, and since he was deliberately ignoring, I asked him to reply to a list of questions pertaining to the issue. He simply just wants me just to succumb and capitulate to their preferred version. I agree with you when you say that "getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles". That is why I informed him that the same should also be applicable to the other side and to arrive at a consensus, the article should strictly commence with a neutral version in consonance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which neither stated that the Pass was situate in Kashmir nor Chinese Turkistan. But Abecedare is just not agreeing to this just and reasonable proposition for reasons best known to him! He simply just wants me just to succumb and capitulate to their preferred version. So his condition was not a "fairly reasonable condition". You have declined my "request" in haste with in a short time. But let me know one thing. I have been blocked indefinitely. I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”. In the version that is now there, all references to Hindutash and other places in Kashmir being allegedly in so-called Xinjiang allegedly in China should be removed, including the Info box. This entails very minor edits, and the Sanju Pass article created by User:John Hill , also initially similarly did not state that the pass was situate in India. And the article should just simply state that the pass is in the Kuen Lun range in Asia. Starting from that version, all the parties should sincerely work towards consensus. Can you resolve the issue in such terms where neither party is prejudiced or humiliated and neither side is required to succumb and capitulate to the preferred version of the other side? Hindutashravi (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's much more information that I am interested in reading. I understood you to say that you would accept the condition if the other people also had to accept it. Since the others do not, as far as I can tell, have to accept it, that means you do not accept the condition. If I'm wrong, and you do accept the condition on yourself, it would be better for you to say that clearly, rather than burying it in a long paragraph on a different subject. If administrators are not understanding your meaning, consider the possibility that you are not expressing yourself very clearly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To arrive at a consensus , the conduct of all the editors ought not severely disrupt the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia, the conduct is disruptive. When Fowler&fowler continually from day one uses words like“Hindutashravi is a known irredentist vandal” or "rv vandalism by irredentist troll" ,the conduct is pernicious and disruptive and I would also be hostile. Why is no action being taken against her/him? Could you block him indefinitely? Is the preferred version of Fowler&fowler and his colleague RegentsPark a neutral version which retains all the points of view and all sources? "Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired". Again you are not abiding by your own statement, "getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles". It was in consonance with the said standard practice, that I informed Abecedare that the same should also be applicable to the other side and in order to arrive at a consensus, the article should strictly commence with a neutral version which neither stated that the Pass was situate in Kashmir nor Chinese Turkistan . Why do you say,“… Since the others do not, as far as I can tell, have to accept it”? To arrive at a consensus, there should be “the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia”. And for achieving the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia, all the editors should have equal privileges and responsibilities, and no one should be subservient to the other. That is the least that one can expect, Right? Hindutashravi (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read most of that. As you've been told before, most people aren't willing to dig through long paragraphs of irrelevant text to try to find the relevant information. As far as I can see from skimming it, though, it doesn't include you accepting the offer to be conditionally unblocked, so it isn't that relevant to your block. I suggest that, if you decide to request unblock again, you keep your request simple and brief, and just explain that you accept the specific conditions for your unblock. Or, if you decide to not accept them, just accept that you won't be unblocked, trust that if you are right, someone else will eventually correct it, and happily move forward with your life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not appealing against the block. I am contesting it since I have been wrongly blocked by vested interests and the block is unjustified. Since Abecedare has blocked me for the alleged reason of causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash , he has to substantiate his allegations. As you have stated, “ The rule you link to requires the blocking administrator to inform you of why you are blocked” . So where has Abecedare done that despite my plethora of demands that he substantiate his allegations ? Except for his statement that he has blocked me for the alleged reason of causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash, he prefers to remain silent when it comes to substantiating his allegations with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia. So the question of unconditionally agreeing to his “fairly reasonable condition” (!) does not at all arise since I am contesting his very action of blocking me. His conditional offer is irrelevant and not not at all germane to the issue of the block and I am contesting the very allegations given for the block as false. Apropos your statements, “Again, that's much more information that I am interested in reading” or “I didn't read most of that” or “most people aren't willing to dig through long paragraphs of irrelevant text to try to find the relevant information”., I have to inform you that I am the aggrieved party, and since I am contesting the very block as unfair, I have submitted verifiable evidence which is very important to me for denying allegations of Abecedare for blocking me , viz. “causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash” So the paragraphs are very much relevant to me particularly since I have been blocked indefinitely on the basis of false and unsubstantiated allegations , so if you are not interested in reading , you ought not to have declined my “request” just to remove the same from the “Category:Requests for unblock”with in an incredibly short time . So you don’t harp on the “fairly reasonable condition” which is irrelevant and not germane to the issue , since I am contesting and challenging initial act of indefinitely blocking me for his alleged reasons. And apply your mind and read my two “request”s to un block and look into the pertinent and profound conduct issues that I have raised which whole show that It was not I who caused disruption and slow edit warring but Fowler&fowler and his colleague RegentsPark and Abecedare ought to have taken action against them, not on me. Instead of doing that, you are just beating about the bush and just fishing in troubled waters. Hindutashravi (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you understood me, but didn't believe me, when I told you that it's useful to express yourself simply and clearly. To answer the one question that I found in this paragraph, you were informed of your block and the reasons for it here. The other request that I found is that I should slowly and carefully read every word of your talk page. I did try, but it is much too long and confusing to be readable- and I have several college degrees in English, so if I can't read it, probably very few people can. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already referred to and quoted what has been stated in the link in my previous messages . I have been allegedly blocked “for long-term and continued disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash”. I am denying and refuting Abecedare’s allegations. But he has not substantiated his allegations. I hope you know the meaning of the word “substantiate” for all your several college degrees in English. There are different aspects to causing disruption . Let Abecedare say how and in what manner I caused disruption since every thing is logged in Wikipedia. Then he would not have had the need to reply to my list of questions. If I continued to revert to my preferred version of the Hindutash article, without first establishing consensus, it is not my fault because my adversaries were neither reciprocating my endeavour for consensus nor appreciating my endeavour and they were taking a rigid and entrenched stance and they were also summarily reverting to their preferred version without first establishing consensus . This is some thing that is borne out by records as every thing is logged!

Summarizing what I have stated, I am refuting and denying Abecedare’s allegation that I caused disruption. The onus is on those who are making the assertion, to prove that I caused disruption . Otherwise, I should be unblocked immediately with the necessary apology for wrongly blocking me for such a long period of time and punitive action should be taken againstAbecedare , Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark. Hindutashravi (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Since you are now using IP sock accounts (203.153.33.250 (talk), 59.92.22.219 (talk), 59.92.93.245 (talk), 122.174.120.36 (talk) etc.) to continue your edit-warring at Hindutash and Sanju Pass, those pages have been protected from such disruption for a year. Note that as a blocked user you are not permitted to edit any page on wikipedia (except for this talk page), using any user ID or IP account. Continued socking and disruption will only further diminish the already slim chgances of you ever being welcomed back as an editor on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]