User talk:Hkelkar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comment on Manu Smriti

Hi, the reason i tried to edit the page on Manu Smriti was because the sources are quoted inaccurately. The line in the article on the caste system reads "As the son of a Shudra may attain the rank of a Brahmin if he were to possess his qualifications, character and accomplishments, and as the son of a Brahmin may become a Shudra, if he sinks to his level in his character, inclinations and manners even so must it be with him who springs from a Kshatriya; even so with him who is born of a Vaishya" (X: 65).

When I refered back to the source the line actually reads "65. (Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya."

It may not be considered a big difference but crux lies in the interpretation of the statement. The article misinterprets the wrongly quoted statement to read that the caste system was not hereditary. Which is inaccurate if you read the context of the statement. The section it is obtained from deals with the castes of the offspring of mixed caste marriages. It has nothing to do with the interpretation in the article. If you object to my removal, please tell me how to change it on the page. I'm new to Wikipedia and do not know how to do so.

Thanks Indiegirl 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not in any rush. I would like very much to get this sorted out and I understand these things take time. But when you wrote "See Page 14. I'll put up the link soon unless you have something to say..." and dismissed my comments because they were not backed up by original research I felt compelled to reply. I will wait for the other editors to weigh in. I only write because I want to help Wikipedia be accurate.

Indiegirl 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i meant to write `not back by peer-reviewed', but that's beside the point. Couple of quick points-- what makes your source the normative source? Can you give me one source that has something negative to say about the source that I use? Are you seriously contending that Indians have no reason to "mistranslated the text as a pretext to attack". Please read the comments in the discussion. I'm interested in this issue of western versus `normative' translations of the Manu Smriti. Any sources on this would be appreciated as I can't find any. I appreciate the job you're doing as editor for this piece, it can't be easy.

Indiegirl 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No thanks

Please read the discussion page **first** Talk:Indian_caste_system#Criticism_of_the_caste_system before jumping to hasty reverts. Ajaypal2k 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Hkelkar. Thanks for undoing the vandalism on Hinduism and other pages. ^Babub→Talk 13:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your constructive edits.--nids 15:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

welcome to wikiBakaman _Bakatalk 02:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody welcomed you yet, this is for you.

Welcome!

Hello, Hkelkar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --nids 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah

The article was really messed up. I reverted back to the edition I made a month ago. Feel free to put your quotes, etc. back in. Sorry for any inconvenience (viewing that article is pretty inconvenient).Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the defence of Hinduism in this article. That is christian missionary propaganda. Aupmanyav 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Warnings.

Plz refrain from issuing Bogus Warnings.See WP:Vand for clarification.Such an act may get you blocked.This was regarding your edit [1].ThanksHoly|Warrior 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is harrassment.Hkelkar 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is harrassment.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not harassment. Content disputes are not vandalism - read up on policies to familiarize yourself with each. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. holywarrior knew this and still accused me of vandalism. That's harrassment.Hkelkar 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of vandalism made by Holywarrior against you. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

it seems, rather, that Hkelkar has used {{blatantvandal}} against Holywarrior. Using such templates against established users in a content dispute is considered very rude, and Holywarrior's reaction is entirely justified. (ᛎ) qɐp 14:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me about that ^_^

Yes yes it is...Leafy 06:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

hello Hkelkar -- looking into Holywarrior's 3RR case, I came across your account, and your statement that you were mistaken for a sockpuppet of Subhash bose (talk · contribs). I see, indeed, no strong indication that you are, and if you are willing to state explicitly that you are not, I do invite you to remove the template from your user page. I also appreciate your proposal of a compromise on the disputed article, which Holywarrior seemed to accept. When reporting 3RR violations, please do make sure to only list edits that were made within 24 hours (which is the scope of the rule). I do think Holywarrior was blocked by mistake, but since he seemed to accept your proposal, I suggest that you consider that particular issue settled. regards, (ᛎ) qɐp 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your post. I will do as you suggest.Hkelkar 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I explicitly state that I am not bose's sockpuppet.Hkelkar 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (3) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TerryJ-Ho 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone just threw out some garbage.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please abstain from provocative comments TerryJ-Ho 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In what way are they provocative? I think you have also made provocative comments, making accusations that are untrue.Hkelkar 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I've finally been unblocked!Netaji 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news! You might want to go to your RFCU page and clear up further absurd accusations made by users.Hkelkar 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think you and Subhash bose are the same person. Your edit patterns are very similar. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Think what you want. Hkelkar is way too patient, civil, and clever to be Subhash. Subhash is idealistic, Hkelkar is practical.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to comment on the sockpuppetry. Hkelkar only started this account on the 24th, yet he seems to know so much about Wikipedia right from the start, with vandalism reverts. He did talk to blnguyen about reverting vandalism, but the way it was asked, seemed to stress the fact that he was a new user, and was asking help on stuff vandalism stuff that, also was a possible conversation topic, did not really seem to be that necessary. The articles that Hkelkar edit are about the same ones as Subhash, even to really specific ones such as Buddha as an avatar of Krishnu. And also, this account was created after Subhash was blocked. So there seems to be a large chance that Hkelkar is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Subhash bose, but then again, if I'm wrong, I don't want to outrightly accuse anyone. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that we know each other outside wikipedia and often discuss articles and how to edit them. Plus, I have been reading help pages and such on wikipedia. I am also in http://wikipediareview.com and ask for help on IM with other users.Hkelkar 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash has a certain approach to talk pages and a rather feeble sense of humour that HKelkar has not deployed, at least as far as I have noticed. Unless I observe edit summaries saying "Nein, mein freund", I strongly doubt they're the same person. Hornplease 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well they're both Hindus, they attend the same university, they're both studying physics, they both edit the same articles, IP's they have verifiably used only differ in the last octet, they have both frequently used popups to revert non-vandalistic edits, and they also have similar diction (e.g. [2], [3]). BhaiSaab ^talk 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nein mein freund.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I'm not a Hindu.My mother is a Jew (Konkani) so I am a Jew.Hkelkar 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash bose can be considered the same thing - that's why he states he's "interested in Judaism" on his userpage. Both of you mention Zionism quite frequently in your posts. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically we have two people above that, along with all other similarities I listed above, have an interest or heritage in both Judaism and Hinduism, a rare combination. Am I the only person seeing something wrong here? BhaiSaab ^talk 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

After being "spotted" thanks to Nein Mein Freund- I would be very surprised if any sock of Subhash's uses that term again. The Maharashtra + U.S.A +Austin + Physics + Hinduism + Jew is a combo which does make one wonder if it's two people. And the last sockpuppetry case in which Subhash was caught, the puppet claimed to be a brother.Here the friend on campus claim surfaced after both ip's were traced to the univ. Haphar 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well everything has been explained to admins.Association does not imply sockpuppetry. Please return to editing articles.Hkelkar 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash was not much knowledgeable on Zionism - I remember one of my posts where I doubted if one of the Hindutva writers from Netherlands was a zionist..it is after this I found the Zionist supporter category on his user page.No doubt after these many blocks he would have learnt not to make the major mistakes that give him away, so easily.Could also be that the same user ID is used by two persons...Unfortunately, it is because of the misuse of this system Wikipedia is considering not allowing edits appear immideately and allowing those appear only after moderation in some of the new initiatives they are reported to be taking.TerryJ-Ho 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think that this is a good idea. It will help keep out the rifraff and anon ip vandalism etc etc.Unfortunately it may be too late since I see that most wikipedia articles are already vandalized with nonsense.

Also, I've been a Zionist (Muslims please don't hate me ;) ) since I was very young, at least in the sense that I believe that Israel has to exist as the return-land for Jews. I have visited Medinat Israel a few times, from Gaza Strip to Golan Heights (takes abt 4-5 hrs by car).I have collateral relatives who did Aaliyah to Yeroshalam and have businesses there and also back in India.Plus, bose is not a Jew, I am. He does not have Jewish heritage, though he is a righteous gentile (in the ideological sense rather than the sense of the formal title bestowed by Rabbinate in Israel or in the sense of holocaust saviors since neither os us were born then). I think you'd be surprised how many Hindus in India are righteous. You don't have to be Christian or Muslim or ger zedek to be hasidei umot haolam. Since Hinduism in it's purest form subscribes to the Brahma which fulfils the first Noahide Law of avodah zarah, it is possible for a Hindu to be a righteous gentile. Plus, since Hindus are usually vegetarian the sixth Noahide law of ever min ha chai is moot. Hindus satisfy all other Noahide laws by default. He only has to follow the first law which I believe bose does (belief in Brahma). Since he has spoaken for the Jews on behalf of the Jews he is a righteous gentile by action as well as by Noahide Law.Hkelkar 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above hardly proves that you are a jew...Jews are a minute minority in India around 5000-6000 people (they can all actually fill in a swimming stadium) and depleting..of more than a billion people in India.One can easily mention what you have written above by reading books on similarities between Hinduism and Jews,You do not necessarily need Internet to find the info..however there are many sites that can help you in attaining that mask.Frankly, if I don't see many well established writers on WP giving their identities - while I see that you have given information right down to your institutions, research labs and down to your PC's..Is it that you want to create credibility elsewhere that many a times is found lacking in your edits?TerryJ-Ho 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's part white? Terry, have you created any articles or anything? Or done anything besides POV war with me, Hkelkar, and Subhsh_bose?Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

Contact User:Blnguyen for starts. Voice your concens there.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

relax

relax first of all. My simple question is, how is anti-brahmin civil and anti-hindu incivil. He is both anti-brahmin and anti-hindu, per his interviews and the external links. these are not my or any third party views, these are just his own views.nids (♂) 07:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Spam

I thought I should inform you regarding WP:Spam regarding [4].HW 11:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam? i just want his help. He seems like the sort of chap who'd know more about this sort of thing, that's all.Hkelkar 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no spam vio Holywarrior. Hkelkar is merely putting a Friendly Notice. Don't bite the newcomer.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think it was spam. That applies to vote-stacking. Anyway, I locked that page for you. I think both sides may have done four reverts actually, but I didn't check to see if all of them were reverts. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. I counted my reverts and I do not believe that I violated 3RR, though HW's edit warring necessitated intervention.Hkelkar 09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior and JFD

Hi there. I have made comments about JFD on his page, but no, I don't think it is defamation. As to Holywarrior, I have passed onto the admin. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Defamation warning

Why don't you go ahead and report me?

I'm curious to hear what an admin has to say about that post[5] and so should you.

JFD 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that I have committed an act of defamation, then you should report me.

JFD 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

I believe in credible sources and giving credit where credit is due.

When a credible source gives credit to India for something, I'll make an edit that reflects that.[6]

But if someone gives India credit for something without citing a credible source, you better believe I'm going to challenge it.

I don't single out Indians; I've done the same for other races too.[7][8]

I would like to engage in dialogue to clear your misconceptions (if any). Thank you.

Engage away.
JFD 17:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos' message doesn't really seem to allude to me and, as for Freedom skies' comments, please point out specific ones because I don't have the inclination to go through the archives of that Talk Page.
JFD 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument "I did it to other races as well" is not a legitimate one.

Oh, I should have made clear that I'm Chinese so that argument is actually "I've done it to my own race" or, rather, "I hold Wikipedians who are Chinese (like myself) and Wikipedians who are Indian (and Wikipedians who are White, Afro-Caribbean, Arab, etc.) to the same standards". That's a pretty legitimate argument.

We are talking about this specific instance, as well as the defwarn above as my response to what I felt was a pejorative remark with possible racist undertones, and whether all this points to a racist attitude or not.

I can't resist naughty puns.

it is possible to look at several of your posts (I'm sure you will remember them) regarding Subhash Kak as racially biased, particularly when you allege that he is not "mainstream" whereas he clearly IS and is well-published in reputable peer-review journals

Actually, I'm afraid I don't remember them. You will need to refresh my memory as to where I have made posts regarding Subhash Kak (aside from the naughty pun, of course.)

With regard to this message[9], I was comparing nationalists in China to nationalists in India. The targeting of academics is a tactic emphasized by nationalists in India.
JFD 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In Indian Nationalism, you changed first without discussing at all (not even after the change), like here.

That edit would make more sense in the context of the discussion at Indian martial arts. There is a distinction between martial arts historians—that is, specialists in the history of martial arts such as Tang Hao, Matsuda Ryuchi and Stanley Henning—as opposed to martial artists, including Funakoshi Gichin and Richard C. Brown, who write about martial arts but do not specialize in the study of its history. For example, the book linked to which Richard C. Brown co-authored[10] is a how-to book, not a history. To describe Brown and Funakoshi as historians, as Freedom skies, did is misleading.

Well while I'll admit that some of the actions of the Indian nationalists have been heavy-handed wrt scholars, surely it isn't even remotely like the death-threats on Salmaan Rushdie by Iranian Ayatollahs for the Satanic Verses, or the Mohamed Cartoon riots worldwide.

I don't dispute your characterization of Islamic fundamentalists at all. They were not, however, within the scope of that conversation.

The truth is that many scholars in the US and Europe ARE racist and have made false and misleading comments against Hindus to defame them, either as a means to get publicity or because they have a deep hatred for or psychopathic obsession with Hindus. Given that bigotry, and the fact that they only single out Hindus for such treatment over those of other ethnic/religious backgrounds, the anger is entirely justified, though not all of the actions are. There is something sick in Western academia (a sickness that has leaked into Indian academia also).

Here I am afraid that you and I part ways. Indian nationalists think that Western academia is anti-Hindu, Muslim fundamentalists think it's Islamophobic, Afrocentrists think it's anti-Black, American nationalists think it's anti-American, etc, etc, etc. I don't see how Hindus are "singled out".
JFD 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me play devil's advocate.
Why is it that when someone refuses to accept claims such as "Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts"[11] or "the science of medicine originated in India,"[12] that person gets called a racist?
Look at how Shiva's Trident/Netaji/Subhash bose responded to CiteCop's request for sources.[13]
JFD 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be frank with you, Hkelkar.

Accusations of racism such as those thrown around liberally by editors such as Netaji and Indrancroos—and I am in no way saying that this contemptible practice is exclusive to Indians—are the last desperate refuge of those whose arguments can't win on their own merits.
They are used for the purpose of silencing, intimidating, and ostracizing dissenting editors.
Not only are such attacks ad hominem, they violate WP:NPA.

Imagine trying to tell the truth about the Islamic invasion of India—about Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Khilji, and Aurangzeb—and then being called an "Islamophobe" by a Muslim partisan.
That is exactly the sort of underhanded tactic that Netaji and Indrancroos engage in: discredit an editor by throwing around cheap accusations of bigotry and hoping it sticks instead of building a real argument.

I'll say this for Freedom skies: as deplorable as I find his utter lack of civility, his double standard when it comes to citation and, most infuriatingly, the way he accuses others of practices that he himself engages in, so far he's had enough dignity not to debase himself with cheap accusations of bigotry like Netaji and Indrancroos have.

I do not believe that Netaji accused anyone of racism, merely stated that many who oppose India's right to self-determination (with a Leftist/Fundamentalist sympathetic bias) make such oppositions. It was not a bad faith assumption because he did not specifically accuse anyone involved in the article of racism.

Hkelkar, please.

Show me where in this message[14] CiteCop expresses "opposition to India's right to self-determination. Nor have I seen evidence of such a sentiment in any of CiteCop's other contributions. Judging by some of them,[15][16] I'd say he thinks quite the opposite.

In response to CiteCop's questions, Netaji replies that "The only people who question them are: White Nationalists, Fundamentalist Muslims, Marxists."

Netaji is clearly insinuating—with no evidence or justification whatsoever—that CiteCop is one of the three.

Our engagement was going so well. Don't spoil it by making disingenuous excuses for the inexcusable.
JFD 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

given the long history of racism and hate against Indians by many people, it is difficult not to jump to conclusions when an editor explicitly singles out an article about India for criticism and states general policy to justify it.

Jumping to such conclusions is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
JFD 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My ears are burning from the way the two of you are talking about me so I'd like to give my side of the story.

I became a Wikipedia editor because of Wikipedia's reputation for inaccuracy.

I figured I'd go around Wikipedia providing citations where I could[17][18] and asking for citations for material that needed it.

That's why I chose the name CiteCop.

For example, I asked for a source on the Sino-Uighur calendar.[19]

A fellow editor pointed me to two good sources.[20]

So I returned the material to the article with proper citation.[21][22]

That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

I do the same on the Indian nationalism page and Subhash bose implies that I'm either a White Nationalist, a Fundamentalist Muslim or a Marxist.

The problem is that Subhash bose is far from alone. Hell, if there's any cabal around here, it's him and his circle of edit war buddies.

Editors like Subhash bose compromise the integrity of Wikipedia articles about India with extravagant unsourced claims or, worse, citing sources that don't verify the material in question.

Look, today you (that is, Hkelkar) made explicit the distinguishing characteristics of the modern zero, so I looked up a print source alluded to in one of the web citations and provided a print citation from a highly credible source.[23][24]

I have no problem doing that. But I'm also going to remove material that is unsourced or is improperly attributed to sources that do not verify the text in question.

If people don't add dubious unsourced material to articles or cite sources that don't verify the text in question, I'll leave well enough alone, but if they do, I'm going to respond vigilantly. End of story.

CiteCop 08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

look

this is getting ridiculous... just because i disagree with a lot of what other people believe in does not mean i am racist. i have never made racist statements... merely reporting the truth and if it disagrees with other people's viewpoints it doesn't mean it is racist. the fact is, freedom skies and indran cross have written a very biased article stating on one part that the british were responsible for the downfall of all indian martial arts... we would like a citation of that. Kennethtennyson 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

british were responsible for the downfall of all indian martial arts

Are you slow or something ?? the lines say The occupation of India by England was instrumental in the decline of Indian martial arts. The British raj saw the supression of several Indian martial arts to obscurity.

Kshatriya rulers killed, arts outlawed, patronages gone with replacement of rulers by the crown. The importance of patronage and the deposition of Kshatriyas has been cited.

As for adding 2+2 on the page, I'll do it soon enough. The thing is Kenny, you can't contribute, all you do is make a nuisense of yourself because you think geopolitically India is going to scary, oddly enough it's the only democracy in a neighbourhood that has a history of military rule and communism, god knows what scares you so much. Freedom skies 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was here to leave a message below, and I'd just like to point out that the comment above was quite inappropriate, and borders on a personal attack. Hornplease 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shiva's Trident

How exactly is he "attacking" anyone?

Exactly as he did with CiteCop,[25] Shiva's Trident or Netaji or Subhash bose or whatever the hell he's calling himself these days is insinuating that Kennethtennyson is either a mujahid or a skinhead.[26]

If anyone is guilty of an ethnocentric bias, be it conscious or unconscious, it's Subhash bose.
JFD 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re

I don't know too much on it. Leafy knows the most. I have it on my watchlist though so its fine.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

With regard to your edit summary [27], a cursory look at the contibs history for that page would have established that I am not the editor who put in the statements you described, arguably, as POV. Please avoid this sort of allegation in general, and in particular when you can establish with a minimal amt of effort that it is unnecessary, or your own edits will be viewed with corresponding doubt by the broader community on WP. Hornplease 07:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you not make the edits I showed in the diff? Just asking.Hkelkar 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was reverting the article. The version I was reverting was more POV than the reversion I was reverting to. Hornplease 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your Query

Reply to your queries posted on my talk page and other pages are Here and Here.I hope you will take care in future. HW 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi and thanks for your edits to List of terrorist organisations. Just so you know, I am nominally the cabal-mediator for the case regarding the Hindu section. However, in the context of the editor who has introduced the Hindu organisations not responding to any communication, the case is probably going to be closed. Accordingly, I would suggest you continue to challenge and then remove material that does not have appropriate references. Thanks, Addhoc 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You'll need two people to say that they have the same problem and are in dispute with Holywarrior. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note regarding my RfC. I did not see the rule that said that 2 users are required to initiate an RfC. I'm sorry if that was wrong of me. I was looking at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and I thought that it said that, failing negotiation, a user may request mediation through RfC Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Discuss with third parties and thought that RfC was the way to achieve that. If that is not the way, then should I file a mediation cabal, or is there anything else? Please let me know.Hkelkar 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one person can initiate the RfC but a second person needs to agree to co-sponsor it within 48 hours. Baka asked my last week about RfC and said he was going to file an RfC. WP:MEDCAB is for article disputes for a mediator, and you can also used RfC for an article if you want people to give an opinoin about an article dispute. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand. Yes, I would like extra pair of eyes to opine about the dispute which I do not think I will be able to resolve with Holywarrior by myself. Can you endorse the RfC, making it two people, or is there a conflict of interet issue on account of your status as an admin?Hkelkar 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in dispute with Holywarrior as I do not edit the articles which are disputed and I have not been the recipient of personal attacks by him, so no I don't think I a ma party to the conflict. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what are the exact criteria for another user to get involved? If a user sees the RfC and wishes to comment, is that enough? Based on what you said it seems to me that the RfC in it's present form is not illegitimate. Can I contact another user and ask him to look at the rfC and, if he agrees that there is a problem, endorse it?What advice can you offer regarding this situation? Thank you.Hkelkar 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

You, Baka, Netaji and perhaps Syiem are concerned that Holywarrior is taking an anti-Hindu POV bias into his edits and that he is making abrasive comments against Hindus on the talk page. Since you are the ones who can understand the merits of various "scholars" on these topics or which sources are credible or are propaganda, then it is up to you to sign the initial part. After that other random people can come and put their opinions. If after 48 hours a second person hasn't supported your initialisation then the RfC will be deleted. It is legit for you to start and RfC. So you would probably want Baka - as Netaji is under block or wait until Monday. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you meant you were going to start an RfC on Holywarrior himself not just the article. Like at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and the personal ones along those lines. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I'm presently doing an RfC on the article Laloo Prasad Yadav, Regarding HW's edits there, not HW himself.Sorry for the misunderstanding.Hkelkar 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding RfC

I may not be able to actively get involved in the RfC now. But I will see to it later. I would just suggest that you keep your cool as there are times when it is difficult to. Thanks.--nids (♂) 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Pop-Ups

Pop up reversions are to be used to revert vandalism. You have abused the pop-up method of reversion at least twice [28][29], on both occassions reverting the same editor. Please refrain from this practice, and it is insulting and an abuse of the system. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, this revert here was unmarked and undiscussed. Please refrain from that also. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I owould have filed one on the user instead of Lalu, which I have never edited.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right.

I failed to realize the mistake in my analogy, and have removed the criticism article from Hindu. The Hindu article was so long that I thought that Hinduism and Hindu led to the same article. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re

Malegaon on my watchlist, Bajrang Dal has been added as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert edits where facts are correctly given.

Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about WP:Verifiability.Hkelkar 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion Ain't Vandalism. If you don't know the rules don't annoy people with your bogus warnings.--Green23 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to uncited information IS vandalism on your part and therefore this warning is bogus. Persistence will bring about a request for sanctions.Hkelkar 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited edits get uncited reversions. That is NOT called vandalism. Again you will only look a fool if you persist with this useless argument --Green23 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.--Green23 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I perceive your edits as manifestedly vandalistic as they do not cite and, in the absense of reliable citations, have a tone and characteristic that can be perceived as defamatory. It is certainly possible that your vandalism was unintentional (in the interests of WP:AAGF I will assume that your edits are unintentionally vandalistic, but vandlistic nonetheless).Hkelkar 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

there were no edits, it's called reversion and reversion of factually incorrect materials, which I cited in the 'history' section of the page from the Bible itself, is NOT vandalism. Good day.--216.254.121.169 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Green23 to be more civil in the future. I also wanted to drop you a note and let you know that he's partially correct. Inserting unsourced information is a bad idea, but is not considered vandalism. Instead of edit warring and calling the edits vandalism, next time try asking for a reference or placing {{fact}} tags next to the unreferenced material. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 20:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Vandalism

I think you should contact any admin to report vandalism of your user page. And reg other pages, just be sure that you keep the relevant portions and delete the rest. Actually, even vandals can give some useful suggestions and pointers ;) ^Babub→Talk 04:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal

Hello Hkelkar. The IP address has been blocked for POV pushing and removing warnings (see here). If the edit was vandalism, then it is not subject to 3RR. If it is not vandalism, then unfortunately, it is subject to 3RR. Best, overall, to discuss on the talk page of the article. Let me know if you need anyhing else. Thanks, Iola k ana•T 10:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Dalitstan

I had gone through and made some changes but thanks for your comprehensive overhaul of the page. Respects. --Antorjal 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

why do you want to delete it. Let it remain there. You can also check some of the strange claims by Zakir Naik. We left them there so that people can understand the stupidity of his claims.nids (♂) 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr Violation

You have violated the 3rr rule on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh with these partial reverts: [30], [31], [32], [33]. This violation was probably inadvertent so I suggest you take a break. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all becoming hostile, and I don't see any "gaming the system" being done by TerryJ-Ho and myself. This violation is not being reported so just take it easy. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HU

"The hate campaign being unleashed by IDRF affiliates (such as hinduunity.org)", taken from [34]. The "affiliate" is HU, and therefore is being called a hate campaign. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe partisan, but reliable. I did say that "some claim ... hate campaign", which involves the source.Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it 4 castes and outcaste or is it 5 caste? Varnas

Thanks for your reply - I am not sure that this is very clear in the article. Shouldn't someone make this point more explicitly? --Hari Singh 10:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Category:Hindu mathematicians is up for deletion [35].Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We do need good arguers to take on the "secular" users.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I saw it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Malegaon

So what? Is it necessary that all newspapers carry the same report?MG may be partisan but is not unrelaible.Search Google news today and you will find this url there TerryJ-Ho 11:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you afraid - Cite specific policy? TerryJ-Ho

Why do you think the above breahces civility?Did you not write - "I'm afraid"?

Dalitstan books

Hi Hkelkar. I made four changes on the Dalitstan books section, which you immediately reverted:

Stopped referring to the Dalitstan books as "books": Books are books, regardless of whether they're published on small presses, print-on-demand, distributed in electronic format, etc. If it looks like a book, there's no reason to refer to them as "books" (surrounded by quotes).
Removed the reference to "reputable publishing house"; "reputable" is a matter of opinion. The text seems to be taking unnecessary potshots at the books' publishing provenance. Criticism of small presses is off-topic to the Dalitstan article.
Fixed the formatting of the book titles (italicizing titles, fixing punctuation, etc.)
Replaced "the magnitude of the claims made in these books are generally contrary to scholarly analyses of Indian History or Indian Culture" with "The works, by several authors, generally mirror Dalitstan's stances on history, culture, and religion.": The original sentence was badly written, and difficult to verify. If you feel that my change detracted, I'd appreciate your contributing a better rewrite.

These changes seem pretty content-neutral, particularly #1-3.

- Anirvan 23:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hkelkar. Wikipedia:Reliable sources deals with criteria to determine whether a work can be used as a reliable citation in Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with the definition of the word "book." There's nothing illogical about saying "John Doe has written three books, the first published by XYZ Books, the second unpublished and being shopped around to publishers, and the third freely available online at www.example.com." The works in question are organized like books, are referred to as such, and copyright/publishing provenance is given. Per your definition, self-published, unpublished, small press, vanity press, print on demand, or electronic books could never be called books, which makes no sense to me. Removing the quotes around the word "book" in the text is content-neutral and NPOV. Anirvan 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Jew Watch. Do they publish anything on their website organized as and referred to as a book? In the book trade, the term "unpublished works" would never be used to refer to books that have been published in electronic format Anirvan 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your latest changes are a big improvement, but with the caveat that "unpublished works" is still misleading, as all the books are, by definition, published online, and some of them also explicitly state their prior print publishing histories ([36], [37]). I'd also mention that the books appear to have been written by several different people at different times, though several are published by the (Dalitstan-linked?) Sudrastan Books. Thanks. Anirvan 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You write that "I can show you 'books' that claim that aliens in UFO's are doing mind-control experiments on dogs and Apemen from the Earth's core are secretly plotting to invade the Earth". I totally agree. R. R. Bowker states that there were 375,000 new books published in English-speaking countries in 2004. Per Sturgeon's Law, 90% of that is crud; I'm sure you don't believe that all 375,000 of those books are reputable and wonderful and well-edited. A book is just a kind of textual work, like a poem, pamphlet, essay, sonnet, email, blog post, etc.; you seem to be assuming that the word "book" implies immediate reputability for the contents. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a non-person; labeling a hateful book a non-book doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Critique the contents, not the format. Anirvan 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for continuing to discuss this. Arguing about tiny edits can be exhausting. As you've probably noticed, I tend to be a stickler for accuracy on book-related topics. Thanks. Anirvan 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Khalistan

Good job with your edits with Khalistan. Syiem 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease

I don't think that there is a problem yet. As for Talk:Prakash Karat, the stuff he removed was inflammatory and unlikely to be of any use in discussing the future of the articles. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

neo-brahminism

By the way, what was the article about.nids (♂) 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Subhash Bose and BADMINton

The current blocks on these two have not been made by me. BADMINton has been indefinitely blocked by Samir and Subhash was blocked for 96 hours by Blnguyen. I however, endorse both these blocks. Subhash's block will expire a few hours from now but if he continues to edit disruptively as he has done in the past he may very well be headed for an indef-block. As for BADMINton, he was blatantly trolling as can be seen in the numerous diffs provided in this ANI thread. However if you wish to take up the issue of his unblocking, I suggest you talk to Samir. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah

(Crosspost from User_talk:Electrawn)

Discussion regarding Ilaiah has been largely resolved with the majority agreeing with the mediation of User:Ben W Bell. See talk page of article. Please don't remove consensus edits. I have provided source to claims made by Hindu groups of DFN being an anti-Hindu org. The edits do not take a position on any issue and are neutral and present facts as facts and claims as claims.Hkelkar 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Some of your edits were OK and addressed real POV issues, so I put them back in. I have source of claims made by Hindu orgs that DFN is anti-Hindu, so that remains. DFN is only ALLEGEDLY a charitable org (they say so, others deny it). In reality, it sponsores terrorism in Tripura with the National Liberation Front of Tripura and distributes anti-Hindu and anti-Brahman propaganda in India.Hkelkar 03:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid use of allegedly unless a legal system has put forth a criminal or civil allegation. Until then, try...XXX is affliated with YYY, a charitable organization. (Reliable Source) has crticised YYY for not being charitable.

Direct Quote even better: (RS) has criticised YYY for "Being a front for a militant organization."

In writing NPOV, judgements and opinions should be left up to the reader.

In writing biographies, don't "demonize" the person. They are human too. Electrawn 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's demonizing anybody. The article does not take a position on anything. Again, I point to precedent as I did with Ben W Bell. The Kancha Ilaiah article should follow the same standards as the David Duke or Louis Farrakhan articles. They are not demonized there either. Plus, all sources that attest to DFN being a "charity organization" are partisan (DFN people only) and so are unreliable in this context unless astated with qualification (which they have been). Even the claims of their opponents are stated with qualification. I can, of course, change the wording to replace "alleged" to "claim" if you would like that. I have also not stated their communal agendas as fact, but as claims. Everything should be NPOV, and all my edits have not been intentionally POV because I assume good faith etc. etc.

If you say, based on partisan sources that DFN IS a charitable org (instead of claims to be one) then you are taking a position on the subject, which is POV. By that logic, even Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux Klan are charitable. I believe that KKK kept refugee camps (whites only as per their declarations) after Hurricane Katrina, so they do engage in "charity work" and KKK website even says that they engage in charity work and "increase awareness" about the "persecution of the white race" in various parts of the world. Same with NOI, who also claim to do charity work (see NOI website) for African Americans but read the NOI article on wikipedia carefully. Precedent, again.Hkelkar 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My beef isn't whether or not the organization is or is not charitable. The beef is that use of the word allegedly is overused, out of context and a word to avoid. Reread my suggestions as a guide above. We are assuming good faith, however, certain words, prose and language imply POV that I am trying to help you with. Electrawn 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Browsing David Duke, another improper use of allegedly is in this section: David_Duke#Interregional_Academy_of_Personnel_Management. Electrawn 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for valuable advice

I think that you are a serious person to understand the problems of the Wikiepeadia editors. Several times I have edited on the main pages, but some others comes and remove them. I know well that the language of the Encyclopeadia is different to the language of the article because you have to say in nutshell. In summerise form it is acceptable bacause those who are expertise in this field they can do well in encyclopeadic english language, which I can not do. This type of the work of the other editors are acceptable. But what happens, when those people comes and interfere with the matters for which they are not expertise and do carelessly changes in very indiciplined way.

Thats why I decided to not to write on the main page of the article and will write on the talk pages , so that editors will be free to select or rejects the matter. What happened, I have to collect the matter very seriously and with the authencity. I consume lot of time to collect the matter because I want that the matter should have credible and true to the best of my knowledge. I am a medical practitioner and works 7 to 8 hours a day in the practice and when I get time,I love to write on the Wekipidea various sections. I like to write on Talk pages because I understand that it is safe to save the matter which collected after a vigourous excercise, where chances of removals by others are very few.

However I thank you for your advice and will try to follow. Many thanks.

user:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com 06:41 PM IST 16 September 2006

Shame

dear you should be feel shame that your modified what i added, i think ur hindu if that the case then i am sorry you know anthing about it. caste system is a simple division of labour. and this system is abused by the gov who have given caste certificate based on birth. you are a dumb who is brainwased by the indian christain missionary media, and sonia gandhi, go lick her.

why dont u see this Caste and Bhagawat Gita http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13167991

Jawaharlal Nehru

Your edit summary for [38] was "By default he is Hindu. Can you provide sources that he declared himself as atheist?". There are two worrying things about this. First, that you assume that "by default" he is Hindu. I think that this is precisely the kind of thing that leads to religion-based cats being filled up without citation. I trust you will avoid doing it in future. Secondly, that you reverted a reversion that I made to a version in which, for some time, atheism has been listed as his religious standpoint. You did so clearly in absolute ignorance of the issue, as it is discussed on the talk page and in the archives of the talk page. Please try and restrain yourself from this sort of automatic revert in future, as it will cause your integrity as an editor to be called into question. Hornplease 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude Nehru doesnt deserve to be called Hindu. His grandfather was a Mogul general. He also had some other issues. Hornplease is right. Dont stick a Hindu tag on people like Nehru.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There were Hindu generals in the Second Islamic Empire as well. Besides, wasn't Nehru a Kashmiri Pandit?Hkelkar 02:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Read vandalism guidelines

Please stop adding spammy links in Yoga's page. Thanks.