User talk:Hkelkar/Archive 4

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

Me, Basawala

You have accused others several times of being my meatpuppet. I shall tell you that a meatpuppet is a single purpose account. So until you come up with the evidence that BhaiSaab or whoever else uses his/her account solely for one purpose, then please do not accuse me of meatpuppetry. Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Er no, this is meatpuppetry Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Meatpuppets Hkelkar 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware:

A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion.

Are those accounts brand new, and do they specifically participate in or influence a particular area of discussion? I myself doubt that. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Sarcasm is considered incivil, so I warn you against using it now, which you have done numerous times before. Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 13:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from your archived page.

I am still waiting for an admission that you were misreading the article that you linked to and that I tagged as miscited and an apology for calling me a meatpuppet.

Note that archiving open conversations is inappropriate. Hornplease 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Milligazette

I don't see any valid reason why for you keep removing their links. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Yeah, I will look into it tomorrow. I was just about to go in like 10 minutes, and I will do a proper look-through tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely AMAZING work on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale! You are an asset pal. Syiem 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was already "looking" into it. see its history.nids (♂) 07:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like the article needs a full re-write. It's not written in a very encyclopedic tone, and it still appears to not be written in a NPOV. I am considering a total re-write of the article, using various sources from the internet. I would personally request page protection, but I must abstain since I am one of the involved parties in editing the article. I also don't know whether the edits made by other users are considered vandalism or edit wars, which makes a big difference in this case. If it is indeed vandalism, then we can request page protection, but if it's edit wars, we cannot and we must try to resolve the issue. I have one major suggestion to the article that I really think would possibly downgrade all the "glorification vandalism" that has been going on lately. A "Legacy" section of the page which would indicate the views Sikhs have of Bhindranwale could possibly satisfy other editors who are only editing the article for the purpose of stating the Sikh POV of this man. Nishkid64 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, since I am an admin and I participated in the article, I must abstain. I suggest you go to WP:RFPP and request for page protection there, and your request will be dealt with by another admin. Nishkid64

copied from Nishkid64's talk page:

==Bhindranwale==

Hi! I came across the article some time ago and I must tell you that I was disgusted. I however tried to stay away as I was in the middle of other really hot edit wars on the subject of Khalistan. However, user:Hkelkar's edits have changed the tone of the article to a great extent and it is a lot closer to reality now. All we need is a few references. I will try to add a few. One particular item I would love to see a citation on is the sectionBhindranwale#early_life (the BBC stuff). I know I read it somewhere, I can't remember where. The article seems to be in sane hands for now so I don't see the need for a protection. But we will have to keep watching as I see an edit war in the making. Cheers! Syiem 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Udit Raj page

Will you please stop repeatedly undoing other people's edits to the Udit Raj page? You have already reverted the page 15 times and despite repeated warnings. You have even erased my communications to you on this page!!! Prior to my edit, the page was not so much an "Udit Raj" page as an "accusations against Udit Raj by various fringe groups" page.

Nevertheless, I have left your accusations in, but added context and links about the organizations making those accusations. The HRW report on the Hindu Right is important because the accusations against Udit Raj come from the Hindu Right. You include the controversy, and you get the HRW links.

The HRW links on violence against Dalits are relevant because Udit Raj is an activist for Dalits.

Swami Agnivesh is not a Christian Missionary but a Hindu Arya Samaji, so that was a factual error that has been corrected.

Kancha Ilaih is not a Dalit, factual error again.

Do not undo the edits to push your POV - which is against Wiki rules.

Why do you keep erasing my talk to you on this page??? I am asking you one last time to please discuss my issues regarding your edits to Udit Raj. Your edits, for the most part, are irrelevant, poorly sourced and violate WP:NPOV. I have tried to make the article neutral and unbiased towards or against Raj per WP:BLP. If you continue to ignore my requests I will file a Request for Arbitration and have wikipedia administrators involved, who will then restrict your editing priviledges.Please stop and discuss in the article talk page [[Talk:Udit Raj

Regarding Y

OK -RegardsBharatveer 10:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

V. T. Rajshekar

I know nothing of the subject, so if anything I thought was OR was actually his words, my apologies. Cites on that would help. I tagged one DV cite because it seemed incomplete (no link). Crockspot 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a more personal comment about something you mentioned on my talk page, outside of the Rajshekar situation. There is a big difference between rooting out bias, and adding opposite bias. Everything on Wikipedia should be written neutrally. It just so happens that WP is fairly overrun with liberal ideology, and conservative bios are constantly filled with libel, so it is a target-rich environment for me. But adding conservative ideology to "balance" the lib ideology does nothing to improve the situation, it just adds to the Wikipedia Bullshit Factor. I do wear my politics on my sleeve, but I try to be objective and neutral about editing at WP. There are other outlets, like CU, where I can vent, rant, and poke moonbats with a sharp stick. Crockspot 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting

Hello, to remind you that I'm still waiting for clarification of what you meant when you accused me of "whitewashing anti-semitism" for my edits to History of the Jews in Italy. Thank you. Itsmejudith 11:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on Itsmejudith's talk page, and am copying here:
Just a general comment here, which I have been beating all around previously. Wikipedia is not in the business of calling people anti-semites (or anything else). If a subject publishes anti-semitic statements, they can be quoted and sourced, in a neutral way. If a reliable source calls the subject an anti-semite, then that can also be reported and sourced, in a neutral way. If a reliable source that happens to be anti-semitic calls the subject a great visionary, that can also be quoted and sourced in a neutral way. If a third party reliable source points out that the source calling the subject a visionary is itself anti-semitic, then that too can be presented and sourced, in a neutral way. WP is an encyclopedia. It should not conclude "Hitler was a bad man." It should point out verified facts on how many people he killed, how many countries he destroyed, and can quote other reliable sources who say "Hitler was a bad man." It is a distinction that means the difference between verifiable reporting, and original research. "Hitler was a bad man" is, at it's root, an opinion. A majority opinion, to be sure, but still an opinion. If you happen to be a neo-nazi, then you may not hold that opinion. That he was responsible for a lot of death and destruction, and that reliable sources called him a bad man, is verifiable fact. WP reports verifiable facts, some of which may be the opinions of reliable sources. But WP does not give opinions on the facts presented.
- Crockspot 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The original text was drawn from the Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication that is in the public domain (so there is no copyvio) but is very out of date. There are various issues related to using this publication as a source in Wikipedia, because, although it is a landmark in scholarship, approaches to writing history have changed a lot since then. The section that I shortened was long-winded and was the editors' interpretation, not fact. I left in the factual points even though they really require further checking and could potentially be regarded as POV, for example by Catholic readers. You should raise this point on the article's talk page without using emotive language. Itsmejudith 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point.I am, of course, somewhat familiar with the Jewish Encyclopedia (though I have mostly only read the Notseas dos Judeos de Cochim and similar works), though perhapos you should WP:CITE accordingly instead of just putting an "External Link". Sorry for using "emotive language".Hkelkar 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted and thanks also for your further comment. Being scholarly is my aspiration and I hope I succeed some of the time. Researching for Wikipedia, what the guidelines call "source research" rather than "original research", is a difficult skill to acquire. I'm glad that there are so many fair and helpful editors out there to advise. Itsmejudith 18:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Pakistan

Please keep that article on your watchlist. I tried making some changes and was reverted. Apparently, some editors believe Pakistan was an independent country prior to 1947 and the spread of migrants from the IVC was an example of Pakistan having control and influence over India. Users try to make it seem like the Indus Valley Civilization was a Pakistani land which was far superior to a Gangetic Civilization which represented India. Wierd that we call ourselves Indians when the Indus Valley was a superior Pakistani civilization that had control over our lands. It also used to state something along the lines of "Ancient Pakistan as an Independent Country did..." when there was no such thing as Ancient Pakistan as an independent country. I discussed this with AfghanHistorian who agreed with my views. The so-called nation of "Ancient Pakistan" should be referred to as the Punjab region or you can say that the IVC lies in what is present day Pakistan and then refrain from mentioning either India or Pakistan. Thanks. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject is alredy discussed in the article.

14:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re:JSB

Hi - it is very difficult to claim its the same guy if there are different IP addresses. I suggest you collect all the evidence (diffs) you can and drop a report at WP:ANI - also invite the attention of admins such as Ragib, Blnguyen and DaGizza - admins are in a better position to help you. Rama's arrow 13:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cheema

Shall I file an RfA?Hkelkar 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's RfA material. You could RfC the article Cheema, get it some attention. - Che Nuevara 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Street Scholar is back with his tendentious edits.For the record, could you drop him a note asking him one last time to discuss? If he refuses or ignores then I will RfC.11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should RfC it (not him, the article) now. - Che Nuevara 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional Newcomer Award!!

I am suprised to see that you haven't yet received a barnstar. You deserve this award. Keep up the good work! --Incman|वार्ता 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

"'bin-Qasim was the greatest thing since sliced falafel whooptee-doo and the soulless infidel Raja Dahir was a stinking heap of camel dung, praise be to God the merciful and compassionate the all-powerful-and-the-all-forgiving etc.etc.[ref]Chach Nama section winkiwonki pg 932 [/ref]'." This is a form of sarcasm that is very rude, even if you were using a mock-quotation to make a point. I have warned you numerous times previously about civility, so I hope you can act civil in the future. Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment: Looks like the ji(had)g is up.Hkelkar 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) constitutes as a personal attack. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

These are legitimate. Please explain your latest accusation, since all I have done is warned you after you committed incivility and personal attacks. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have never tried outright to request your blocking. I have only kept tabs on your behavior, which has included numerous counts of incivility. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to be grammatically the subject of your statement to be a personal attack. You sneaked the word "jihad" deliberately into your comments to imply that I edit in that nature. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked that you think I am hostile towards you, as I have no account of any incivility or attacks towards you. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have an administator decide on the comments, as my evidence doesn't seem to work. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your apology. I hope we can settle our differences and work together in the future. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Praveen Togadia

Thank you for your work on that article. Please note, however, that NPOV demands that allegations against him be substantiated, and be from acceptable media outlets or political adversaries. Surely somebody other than milligazette, have had something tto say? Also, please do not fall into the trap of stating the allegations in a line and quoting extensive passages in rebuttal. A summary and link should be sufficient, if the rebuttal is encylopaedic and relevant. Hornplease 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Notice I havent interfered while you do it. Hornplease 23:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:TerryJ-Ho

Where do I go to report this users persistent and systemic incivility towards me if not WP:PAIN.Please forgive me if I have erred in repoting him on WP:PAIN. I will follow whatever wikipedia policy requires of me in the process of filing a case regarding him. Is RfC the right way?Hkelkar 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC is certainly one way of doing it. You could try WP:ANI though (or contacting an admin directly).

The usual pre-processing though is to try to reason it through, using mediation if required. There are however warning templates for civility, being {{subst:civil1}} and {{subst:civil2}}. I hope this is at least of some assistance to you. Please bear in mind though that the line is crossed when something becomes a personal attack - that goes back to WP:PAIN at that stage. Crimsone 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

Happy Diwali. Siddiqui 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mistake

You are welcome. I do believe that Satyen Bose was worthy of a Nobel prize. Too bad other physicists who used his ideas got Nobels, while Satyen Bose didn't. --Ragib 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Thanks for ur advise regarding Mujebrakhan and his sock puppets , i will report it.--Vikramji 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

.}}

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 13 2006 to Muhammad_bin_Qasim

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.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: I did not violate 3RR in the article. I undid my last revert [2] with another revert [3] so that 3RR would NOT be violated by me. I think that this block is the result of a misunderstanding - you are correct. My apologies. I will unblock you William M. Connolley 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations on RCFU

Would you care to explain these accusations [4]?

Saber rattling, contentious and often propagandistic editing, defends racists on wikipedia, seems to be loading articles against Hindus

I have nevered endorsed propaganda, "saber rattled", and I loathe racism. I do respect Hinduism and the Hindu people, and none of my edits show disrespect.

Thank you, and happy Diwali! Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any anti-Hindu falsifications. Would you care to explain? By the way, Blnguyen has responded to our comments on his talk page. Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Status on case

Hi - just a quick update for you: As there is an outstanding RFCU on mujeerkan et al, I'm going to wait until we get the outcome of that before continuing. The reason for this is that it can make my job easier (also, by the by, I agree that there is some sockpuppetting going on here - not sure to what extent, or by whom, but it's clear (I feel) that something's going on). All the best, M a rtinp23 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. More info is being requested on the RFCU page - just to let you know. They seem to require diffs of the edits made by the accused. M a rtinp23 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder - the RFCU are waiting for diffs - I'm not sure whifch ones you;d want to use, and overall I'm going to take a small step back from the RFCU case, but if you want, I'll look over any diffs you think are suitable (I think this is the best way to do this - you probably have a good idea of diffs to use, whereas I have had little to no interaction with these users). Thanks M a rtinp23 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-Hindu Castes

Do you think the non-Hindu castes in India are a result of the influence of the Hindu caste system? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No I do not. The Fatwa-i-Jahandari has nothing to do with Hinduism.Hkelkar 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That fatwa came after the classes were already in existence - did it not? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The two phenomena are unrelated. The fatwa segregates Arab descended Ashrafs with Indian Ajlafs. Arabs have nothing to do with Hinduism.Hkelkar 01:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're discussing cause and effect here. So you believe that the classes among Muslims are directly a result of the fatwa? That's interesting. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, look up the al-Akhdham of Yemen. They are untouchables in yemen and have nothing to do with Hinduism either.Hkelkar 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that state your perspective on this issue? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They are all well-sourced in the articles.The al-Akhdham are regarded as untouchables. look at the articles refd on Caste Hkelkar 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No I mean do you have any sources that state the the classes are a result of the fatwa - do you have any for that? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don;t correspond with me anymore

I find your AfD for anti-Hindu to be a horrific act. I cannot correspond with you anymore and since you have a disparaging attitude towards me it will only waste both our time to argue.Hkelkar 01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my AfD, unless you think TerryJ-Ho is my sockpuppet. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Urgent. I need your opinion

User:TerryJ-Ho and user:BhaiSaab lost a mediation to me and are retaliating by demanding thatthe well-sourced article anti-Hindu be deleted. Please contribute to the AfD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 01:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't spread nonsense. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two people's apparent bad faith decision does not delete an article. I don't think there will be many delete votes, considering the article is well written. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my contribution Syiem 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Catholic Dalit Correction

I have posted some comments to your addition to the Catholic Dalitsection under origins on the talk section of the Dalit page.

Indian Caste System

I would have been in violation of 3RR so , I am writing here.Your edit on Indian Caste System saying in the edit history smacks of your lack of knowledge of the Hindu religion.You seem to be confusing the Hindu religion with Arya Samaj when you write in your edit history that the sources of divine law in Hinduism are only Vedas.Your approach seems to convey this is an external influence?? Did Christianity bring Castes in India or did Islam bring castes to India? If there is some form of caste among Indian Christians or Muslims - is it due Hinduism's influence or these religions. The truth is this is a very current social problem with Hinduism Low-caste Hindus adopt new faith:BBC News 14 October 2006 and the solution is not in denying its existence or denying its link to Hinduism as such but to understanding it.You seem to be guarding that page not to let any other view than your own often inspired by the practitioners of Hindutva TerryJ-Ho 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

O yeah Arya Samajis. Sadly Terry fails to note that you are Jewish. I wonder if he's heard of Uma Bharti (the most harline Hindutvavadi) or Bangaru Laxman, or Tapir Gao (tribal). What about the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram? The fact is that Hinduism has managed to quietly pull itself out of this quagmire while other Indian communties are stuck in time oppressing lower castes.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a Hindu or a Jew with a Hindu name does not matter.TerryJ-Ho

What doesnt matter is your useless rant above, and your interpretation of Hkelkar's comments.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

~~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:~~

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Tutorial

How to edit a page and How to develop articles

How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)

Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
This is in reference to your calling Christian Missionaries as Bible Thumpers.A user User: Subhash bose was earlier reprimanded for using such disgraceful language but you seem not to take cue.TerryJ-Ho 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
~~Which is exactly what they are.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~~
Same applies to you Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 01:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogus warning. Christian Missionaries are called Bible Thumpers in the US media only.Hkelkar 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
~~striked out bogus warnings.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~~
~~WP:CUTPASTE~~
Hello Hkelkar! I noticed that you reverted the redirect of Indian caste system by cut-pasting the article. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GDFL copyright terms of Wikipedia, which require attribution. In the future, please use the move button instead. Only an admin can correct the broken history now. Could you place a request at WP:RM or better still, contact any of the admins like Ganesh or Sundar, who would be happy to fix this for you. Keep up the good work. Cheers!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 11:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
~~(edit conflict) Okay, no worries. I see Konstable has already fixed it.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 11:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Re: Fake article~~
~~Yep I figured it out just now. The guy moved it. I blocked him for now.--Konst.able 11:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~~
I protected the article just from page moves. Anyone can still edit it, but only admins can move it.--Konst.able 11:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So the guy's block will expire in about 3 hours. He was not blocked with his first account for this, and it is really not vandalism just a highly disruptive move without consensus, so I don't see a reason to extend his block for any longer.--Konst.able 11:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
~~Blocked~~

You have been blocked for 24 hours for using disruptive and offensive edit summaries like this. Please try to leave informative and helpful edit summaries in the future. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Hope you keep your promise. I'll hold you upto it.
Request handled by: Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 15:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)