User talk:Tripping Nambiar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

British Raj article

Your participation in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. See discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Raj#Neutrality_Check:_Article_Reflects_British_POV British Raj Neutrality Check Desione (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you be a Dravidian and an Indo-Aryan? The two are not interchangeable.

I was just browsing your User Page - and saw that you're from Kerala, and are a Dravidian, yet claim to be an Indo-Aryan.

Indo-Aryans and Dravidians do not have the same origins - so how can you claim to be both? The Dravidians are a Melanid/ Veddoid/ Australoid type and occupy Central and Southern India whereas the Indo-Aryans occupy Northern India and are Caucasaoid/ Europid type.

As you're from Kerala, you must definitely be a Dravidian. I think you need to rectify that.

Well first of all I highly doubt your "Indo-Aryans occupy Northern India and are Caucasaoid/ Europid type" or that "The Dravidians are a Melanid/ Veddoid/ Australoid type and occupy Central and Southern India". You need to rectify this false assumption, I have seen many Australoid/Veddoid looking Indo-Aryans, who actually look more stereotypically Dravidian then me, as I have seen many Indo-Aryan(Caucasoid/Europid) looking Dravidian peoples, and the Kodava Dravidians are actually Indo-Scythians. "As you're from Kerala, you must definitely be a Dravidian" is also a false assumption as Brahmins of Kerala are of primarily Aryan descent (at least paternally) and Nasrani are of partial Arab descent. Genetically and phenotypically an upper caste Dravidian can be closer to one Indo-Aryan ie a Gujarati than a Bengali,Bihari or a Sinhala is to the same Gujarati, and have more West Eurasian MtDNA than a person belonging to any of these groups. My reason for adding both is my view and argument that both terms do not connote different races, as Eurocentrics, divide and conquer tactics, Afrocentrics and leftist politically motivated historians would have people believe, but rather is a blanket term for various peoples and communities of different genetic and racial history based on the languages they are natively known to speak. In that case I most definitely am a Dravidian but this does not map out my genetic history and community origins most definitely. I do have partial Namboothiri Brahmin blood in my veins just to add, however this is not relevant to the argument. Most Indians are a definite mix of many races and the only North Indians who definately deserve the "Caucasoid/Europid" (though a humorous description for most North Indians) tag are some communities in the North (Gujjars, Jats etc) and most of the Punjabi peoples. Thank you for asking this awaited question and I hope more Indo-Aryans or Dravidians with assumptions which I can challenge do too. B Nambiar 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Koorgis and Bunts of South India are supposedly Aryans. Their genetic code according to the tests conducted in the U.S conclude that they are of Indo-European origin. We can not assume race without a scientific proof any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.179.16 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

http://books.google.com is very useful some times if you want info on something useful for supporting your arguement.

I hope this will clear ur doubts http://books.google.com/books?q=Nair+Sudra http://books.google.com/books?q=Malayali+Sudra

Its a know fact that ezhavas were never part of chathur varna. So case of alling with any layers of that. See wiki is not the page add content with no reference. You can see from this Nair woman goes everywhere thus, uncovered and unashamed. from the book found here [1]. So thing we cant add and some details we can add. in 1931 servay, there was no reference of Nair and vellala, but called Malayali Sudra and Naanchinadu sudra. The page scanned and added in SN director from Koumudi publications page number 86. The english books say same thing with ref to Nair http://books.google.com/books?id=KCm1s6NYjpkC&pg=PA219&dq=Nair+woman&ei=OT8XR6umPJXC7AL-2IjLBQ&sig=GumwrbX-BESLz7ouHTHT8Bda8Q8

61.95.201.56 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather pointless comment. It just brings up text which contains the words Nairs and Sudras, Im not sure what to make of this. Well aware of the fact that Nairs are Sudras in the eyes of Namboothiris if thats what you commented to suggest, however unofficially in most accounts they were Kshatriyas in profession. B Nambiar 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think kshtriya samaj will sue u if the seen this. See 1931 Census information if you can get it from somewhere 61.95.201.56 11:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see on what grounds Kshatriya Samaj will sue me. I have acknowledged the census information that at 1931, and I have concluded that perhaps in the city of Travancore in 1931 "number rich business people among the community was better compared to Malayali Sudra(Nairs) and Nanchinattu Sudras(Vellalas)". You must be brimming with Ezhava pride, for surely now if never before Ezhavas are greater than Nairs. Congratulations old chap. I shall campaign for similar numerous cited comparisons that compare Nairs favorably to Ezhavas to be included in the Nair article. B Nambiar 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nambiars, are they frome Kerala? Are they Nambudri Brahmins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by

69.182.179.16 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- Merope 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User Tulu war is hypocritical as my edits are proven to be of a factual basis, and also to remove a POV comparison as the Ezhava article is full of peacock terms and POV which users such as Tulu war vehemently maintain. My attempts at negotiation to make Tulu war understand how I support my edits have been unanswered and the 3RR rule was broken before me by user Tulu war who reverted my factual edits and removal of a POV comparison which I reverted back in the interests of objective information. Ezhava users seem to have a group inferiority complex and only appreciate selective edits that cherry pick or further add peacock terms to the poor article to show the community in subjective light. I feel like I'm trying to edit an advertisement to make it accurate and the company the who makes the ad i.e users such as Tulu war are collaborating to keep the article perpetually misinforming. B Nambiar 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are many good ways to deal with an editing conflict. Edit-warring is ineffective, and it's against the rules- even when you are sure that you are right- so when your block expires, you'll need to use one of the other suggestions at Dispute resolutions, so you can avoid a similar problem. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

)

Why don't you block user Tulu War as well, as instead of choosing mediation which I would have preferred, the user chose to report me even though the user ignored the comments left on the users page by me and after all the user broke the 3RR rule before me by reverting my ads more than three times and continued to edit-war with me which is the same violation. B Nambiar 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kshatriya

Hi TrippingNambiar, Let that nut jayvyas/khatriNYC do watever he does. If he still repeats his vandal, Issue warning n request you to report it to admin ab him. Already DBachman warned him. Unnecessarily he is making WP messy.

Civility comment

First, I just want to make this absolutely clear: making accusations about the intentions of other editors is not helpful to your arguments. Comments like "Ezhava users have ... perhaps due to insecurity" are going to make me just ignore you. Comment on the text in the article, not on other users (their intentions, their backgrounds, the color of the user pages, I don't care - don't talk about it). Now, comment at Talk:Ezhava about what specifically you want changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have said ignored but you sort of see what I mean at Talk:Ezhava[2]. Basically, Ezhavas can be considered like dalits because both have no position within the Hindu caste system. The note about them historically having no position is already there (and doesn't seem too controversial) but comparing them to dalits is. So, to be fair, I'd say keep what's in the intro and add a section detailing how Ezhavas fit into the Hindu caste system (and take the sentences about their classification as backwards castes) so that it's more organized. Thus, it's more like "don't have a position in the caste system => classified as backwards caste in modern society => similar to dalits." Again, other ideas, respond at the article talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Nair comments

Its seen that the social status of a community is added to first line of the introduction of any community article. It has been also noted that you yourself have been added same thing to some other article. please refrain from removing rerenced contentVvmundakkal —Preceding comment was added at 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please stop reverts to Nair Article. You have violated the Three Revert Rule It will reported asap. Vvmundakkal

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vengayil

Vengayil is a nayanar family. The statement and reference is provided below. Supporting Statement- “The Chirakkal Raja's family owned about 30000 acres; the Vengayil Nayanar family owned over 200000 acres, including forest lands; the Kurumathoor….” Reference- Organized Struggles of Malabar Peasantry, 1934-1940 Prakash Karat Social Scientist, Vol. 5, No. 8 (Mar., 1977), pp. 3-17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vengayil and Nayanar-Seperate Nayanar page

The relationship between nayanar and nambiar are the same as nambiar and kurup all of them being sub-clans among nayars of malabar that can marry one another.All documentary evidences like the one i have provided before claim vengayil to be nayanar.Moreover there also seem to be a SEPERATE NAYANAR PAGE and so Vengayil K Nayanar , the vengayil family and the nayanar belong in the Nayanar page. Sorry to say this but inspite of me providing documentary evidence pertaining to vengayil-nayanar (Social Scientist, Vol. 5, No. 8 Mar., 1977 pp. 3-17 connection)you have neither produced any document that support nayanar and kalliat connection nor nayanar-nambiar connection, . I am also from malabar and a nambiar myself and so i cannot buy your argument as i know personally that Nayanar and Nambiar are tow different sub-clans. Also considering that there is a seperate Nayanar page -Kindly add these eminent personalities in the nayanar page-that is more appropriate thing to do otherwise we will be blamed of hijacking personalities from other sub-clans.LET US RESOLVE THIS ISSUE BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. please understand and Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello there. I came to your user page upon following your comment on the Indian National Congress page. From your userboxes, it seems that you are an enlightened, modern world citizen who appreciates the values of libertarianism and is against racism. Broadly, you seem to be supportive of equality. Given that, I find it intriguing that you also support Hindutva, which is inherently fascist in practice. Don't get me wrong, I'm just interested in knowing your thoughts. As for me, I used to be a strong BJP supporter until Gujarat happened, and made me feel terribly let down. Amit@Talk 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I appreciate your nuanced approach and your candidness about the contradictions in your views. I am not going to make any attempt to "convert" you here, but just a couple of observations:

1)I am no fan of the Marxists, I absolutely loath them and I sympathise with the victims of their terror squads. However two wrongs don't make a right so I don't know how this justifies the armed gangs promoted in the name of Hindutva to "defend" the hindus; one would think in a modern nation it's the state's responsibility, and indeed sole privilege, of enforcing the law.

2)I agree with you in that Hindutva promoters are not "fascists" in the strict sense of the word, but hearing VHP leaders on TV has made me wonder if there's any difference in tactics - both rely upon the dehumanization of the "other" (Jews/Muslims) to justify inhumane crimes against them. I repeat - I saw these on TV, so their's no question of doubting the reliability of those news. Again - about BJP's role in Gujarat violence - There are some publications which I've come to respect and trust over a period of many years - primarily the Indian Express and the Outlook magazine - and they have clearly exposed BJP's role in orchestrating the violence; I can't see why they would want to mislead the public "on purpose".

As I said before, I used to love the BJP before, but with time I came to realize that everything they stand for is opposite to basic human values that I hold dear. As I said before, I'm not trying to inflence your views, but I sincerely hope that as your political views mature, and you try to resolve the contradictions in them, you approach things with an open mind and in the process are able to see some uncomfortable truths, like I did.

P.S:I'm well read in Hindu scriptures and the teachings of Hindu Saints like Swami Vivekananda, and I must say the Hindutva practices share nothing in common with them. Indeed, the kind of Hinduism the Hindutva people purport to "save" won't be worth saving at all. Amit@Talk 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Menon

As wiki policy you cant add content without reference. Thats the reason why List of Nairs and List of Notable Ezhavas deleted Vvmundakkal 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

Sorry, I never responded to your comment about seeing me on Facebook. Go ahead and send me a message there! --vi5in^[talk] 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava

Well, there is a mention buried at the end of the "Spiritual and social movements" about the government classification but I know what you mean. I'd wait a few days to see if anyone responds and then the intro should describe them as "a community with a prior Buddhist background that is considered avarnas under the Hindu religion and is now OBC" or something. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt again that they are actually interested in real discussion and not just blatant "give me my version or I'll insult you" again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to see some Nairs around here.... Axxn (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

DMK idiot?. Please do elaborate on why you consider me a DMK idiot, especially when I have blasted the Dravida Monkey Kazhagham many a time on wikipedia. In case you didnt know, people wishing to convert to Hinduism do look on the Wikipedia page, and the Real world implications of closing off your religion to them need to be looked at.Bakaman 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not is a very strong term. As you may know, our ancestors were "converted" by Rishi Agastya. Rather than saying "Hindus dont proselytize", I merely feel its better to say "Hindus dont feel the need to proselytize". The nuances are important here, but I am under no illusions that Hinduism is a missionary religion a la christianity.Bakaman 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Kannadiga. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't insult other editors in edit summaries. Edit summaries aren't meant for that. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to look at

[3][4] [5][6] [7] Castagnets (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy editing

I would remind you that proxy editing for a banned editor (as per the above talk page message) can be a reason for sanctions against yourself. Your edits have been reverted. Also see the administrator's noticeboard. BLACKKITE 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Nambiar

Cdpothen (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume you are a Malayalee as myself. I could not even believe my ears and eyes when I saw it was a guy from Kerala where people are educated and literate, who was completely reverting what i had painstakingly typed in about the RSS.

Have a couple of questions for you ....

1) Why are you doing this, ie just ignoring what i have typed in and doing a blanket revert?

2) Seems like you are a hardcore Hindutva guy who does not want anyone else to live in India. What is it that made you turn to this radical genocidal path where noone other than a Hindu has the right to live, every other community has to die?

3) Do you believe that Godhra riots , Graham Staines and the Gandhi Assasination did not happen ?

If you have the answers and the courtesy to respond, I shall expect a reply on my User talk page.

Regards, Cdpothen

PS As to complaining about me, feel free to do so if you wish. I have said nothing but the truth.

Crit of H

Your recent edits:

I have enough on my plate, and in any case that entire article needs to be radically restructured, but of your recent removals, please note that internal critics and reformers of orthodox Hinduism - specifically Dayanand Saraswati - specifically worked against child marriage, that some authorities still claim that the Rg Veda enjoins marriage before puberty, that it was linked with caste and notions of ritual purity (Axel Michaels, p88) and that the Britannica says, of the puranic period, "Some of the less attractive features of Hinduism, such as child marriage and the rite of the satt, were already in existence.."

Just to warn you for the coming reorganisation. Don't have time for a full discussion now. Relata refero (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus

Please explain in the talk page how the Bhutan section can be religious persecution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

== 3rr ==

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on national Development Front. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Also, please avoid using WP:Sockpuppetry [8] or else you will be permanently banned. -- Sundaram7 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet

This guy User:Mrasheedpk seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7. Is an WP:RFCU in order?Eagerbeaver434 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ndf

Please do watch the article on the National Development Front, especially the militant Islamist trolls deleting sources and whitewashing the article. Thanks.Laughing ocean (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

"Anti-Christian violence from Hindu groups is largely a response to zealous proselytizing activities and aggressive attempts to pull down Hindu theology and mythology by the numerous Evangelical missionaries in their primary goal of converting Hindus to Christianity and eliminating Hinduism, such as distributing evangelist pamphlets in Ramlila grounds[64]."

Please mention the page number. You mention the page number 405, but I found no text like this in that page [9]Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Fox News

Prove that Fox news is biased towards Christianity. Or self-revert. As per your own logic, BBC is also not RS. See Criticism of the BBC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC has been accused of anti-American bias. But US related articles use BBC as reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits about a bias towards Christianity, specifically that of Catholics and Evangelicals. The source you linked is not accessible by most people, and a simple google search doesn't bring up anything, do you have additional evidence of your assertation? If so please bring then to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Arzel (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing on the talk page about the merits of your points and how to incorporate them properly. If you would like, please join in the discussion (and don't take reasons like "not accessable by most people" as valid, because they certainly are not). In this particular case, the book is accessible via google books, so Arzel's comment is completely without merit. Thanks... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

I added the following comments on the Religious violence in India talk page but Otolemur crassicaudatus has removed them twice [10][11]. Obviously, I think it's important.

"Not trying to attack here, but for the record I think that it should be pointed out that it is apparent that OC appears to be an ardent Christian who hates Hindus and is bent on propagating an anti-Hindu flavor in many articles. Examples: here and here where he deleted information on the persecution of Hindus but added info on the persecution of Christians [12]. His adding of the section on India to the Anti-Christian sentiment page again which gives only one side of the issue. The anti-Hindu comments he inserted on the Islamophobia page [13]. His creation of and sole contributing to an article called Crime in India etc. This is not an objective editor. By the way, I've not noticed a similar devotion to deletion on these pages by Hindus." 63.196.193.225 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudumbis or Kudumbi

Mr. Nambiar, Could you please look at this merger proposal and comment? It has been tagged since a month & no comment added yet? Do you have any idea about it? (please leave reply here/merger discussion page). --Avinesh Jose  T  04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant speech

hi...

im assuming u undid my post with sincere intentions. but im a bit perplexed as to how u classified that as irrelevant speech. cos it was very much about the organization in question.

hope u reply soon... take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almalabaari (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Caste system in IC

You've broken WP:3RR. Revert yourself, please. Relata refero (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

point taken

about summarizing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almalabaari (talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

b nambiar.. please read before deleting.. as mentioned above i took ur point of summarizing the fatawa.. it has been reduced to a fraction of its original size. it is not a speech. it is a fatawa. They are both two worlds apart. The fatawa in this case is an appraisal by a scholar in madina. I sincerely took ur point of summarizing, and put only the last paragraph of an entire fatawa. Please take more care when u delete or undo, that you read what it is you are acting on. Sincerely yours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almalabaari (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallo

Cdpothen (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

hi have been very busy with work to reply to your comments and to put in a response as well as editing the main rss page....will try to do more justice in future...

Religious violence

The reference given lists only one case- hence the rewording, if there are more sources/references that show the earlier wording to be correct please add them and revert the changes. Haphar (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You've broken 3RR again. Revert yourself, please. Relata refero (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The references ( not even getting into reliability, the only O P Ralhan I have heard of used to make masala movies) do not give any specific instances or examples of ( unlike the Tribune article which does) of any BJP/RSS person/s stopping a mob of Congressmen or protecting Sikhs.So far only one reference- the Tribune artice which was the original reference- does. Haphar (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

B Nambiar, I encourage you to file a suspected sockpuppet (WP:SUSPSOCK) case for [[User::Tebrreak]]. A new user account starting out suddenly reverting other users genuine changes can only be a sock puppet and should be banned. Seems like an account specially created to force a 3RR block. Desione (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chitpavan

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Chitpavan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

Would you elaborate in what sense was the addition POV? It merely states the historical background that the turk's, the mongols and the subsequent turko-mongols who formed the Muslim conquering armies that built empires in the Indian sub-continent were Central Asian in Origin much as the earlier hepthalites, huns, kushans, scythians, parthians, khambojas etc. etc. etc. that have been always been coming down the north-west corridor. If there is something specific we can address the issue and modify as necessary.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However before you label anything OR, I would like to ask you to assume to good faith. This would mean requesting citations from the editor before summarily pronouncing judgment and resorting to extreme measures such as blanking especially when significant other portions of the same article are hardly upto speed on this score. Addressing the issues you have raised however:

I found a few of the sections POV and slightly misleading.

I am happy to work on the sections you have issues with if you could label them maybe with dubious or be more specific and quote the particular sentences you have issue with, along with proposed modifications. "some" is a bit vague and does not quite help me identify them.

Akbar was in some ways an absorber of local cultures and in some ways was the opposite

I do believe this is quite it says when it raises Akbar as an example.

..ignores the fact that invading Muslims labeled the followers of Indian religion Kafirs, and most at some point in time aimed and acted towards eliminating native practices in the common goal of establishing Islamic states.

I would have to disagree, as far as I can see nothing in the matter placed contradicts or contravenes the labeling by each to the other either as kafirs or mlechhas. Infact the second paragraph focuses on just this, the difference between prior invasions and the Muslims of central asian origin has indeed been raised and identified.

All in all seeing your comments I don't think we have any seriously different reading of the events and any issues herein should be able to be easily resolved if we can better identify specific issues to work on.--Tigeroo (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have no objection to the information, just find a believable, reliable source. Relata refero (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

It is noted that you had already performed 3RR see WP:3RR. Anyway I am not going to report it to admins now as I have lots of other issues to be settled. I suggest you to take off some time & read our policies like, WP:5P, WP:CIV, WP:RS etc.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at National Development Front. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Absad may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. —slakr^\ talk / 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Iyer

Well, I appreciate the good work you have been doing in protecting Iyer article from vandalism. :-) Anyway, I observe that you been manually removing the edits made by the anonymous IP which could be tedious as well as error-prone. Well, I wish to inform you that I am a rollbacker and a single click is enough for me to automatically remove all the edits made by the previous editor. The process is less tedious and less prone to errors. :-) Hence if at all you observe any sort of vandalism you could well leave it to me. I visit the article page quite often, atleast once a day and will definitely remove any vandalism of edits made in bad faith.Thanks.-Ravichandar 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks a lot :-) There is scope for more improvement still. More citations need to be added and the book-citations need to be standardized. I opt for Harvard Referencing method. And then still a couple of paragraphs to be added. Once these are done, we will go for a peer review and then nominate it for featured article :-).-Ravichandar 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brahmoism

Dear Shri Nambiar. Your edit at Brahmoism is appreciated. If there is a specific POV issue you have in mind kindly post it to the Talkpage there. In the meanwhile I have undone your edit, since the same statement has been "stable" at Brahmo Samaj for a long time.91.84.248.29 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shri Nambiar. I understand and appreciate your sentinments. I have also read your talkpage and browsed some of your edit. FYI there are enough defenders of Hinduism within Brahmoism. I "perceive" that you have not read the Brahmoism article sufficently carefully. FYI there has been a sudden interest in Brahmoism after 2 recent conferences in South India(Bang. + Hyd.(Deccan)) now reflecting in wiki. FYI there are 2 powerful branches of Brahmoism - Adi (original) Brahmoism which is a Brahmanical development with a powerful nationalistic base, and another form which owes its spirituality to Christendom and foreign missionaries. Expert exponents of both branches are currently engaging at Wiki and out-of-Wiki over Brahmoism. You may also find Sivanath Sastri's statement in his History interesting "There are many more Brahmo (Samajists) outside Brahmoism than within it." Warm regards. 91.84.248.29 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shri Nambiar. Thanks for your prompt reply. To understand Brahmoism properly, you must understand that Brahmoism can either be a "national religion" which resulted in Independence, or a "Universal Unitarianism" which claims all religion as one. Raj Narain Bose (Brahmo) is father of Hindutva (not Savarkar). These non-RS links may be useful. http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_050625.htm, http://www.newstodaynet.com/2007sud/sep07/030907.htm 91.84.248.29 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:BKN, your recent POV edits on articles connected with Brahmo religion is bordering on citeable vandalism, especially since you are repeatedly refusing to discuss on the discussion pages of the articles you are editing. Kindly use the Talk Pages. I do not agree with what is written by the user above. We can discuss that also. Yvantanguy (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You appeared to be engaged in an edit war according to the 8 similar reverts you made on 8 April 2008 on Brahmo Samaj and its connected articles. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Lillycottage (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nair/Samurai

Hello B Nambiar. I see that you have made edits keeping in the statement that Nairs were like the Samurai of Japan. I myself am Nair, but I don't see what the Samurai has in relation with Nairs apart from a martial history. There are thousands of martial races around the world, why choose the Samurai who had a different culture, religion and even system (they were patrilinear). Also you won't see the Samurai article saying how close they are with the Nairs of Kerala. The Nairs have their own identity, and were King-makers and land-lords (unlike the Samurai who were only warriors). If you want find references linking Nairs to royal dynasties, information about Nair states or other links between Nairs and other communities in India (such as the Indo-Scythian origin of Nairs which has been proposed)Hijjins (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not North vs South

It is not unfair to some regions it is unfair to just one region- and details of what are the states included in the region is not given. South's progress can be highlighted and not neccecarily by targetting just one region, it is not a South India vs North India article, but a South India article. Haphar (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Sikh Riots

Please take a look at the following: http://www.punjabtrauma.org/shoot/index.html. Anyone who opposed the militants was killed irrespective of weather they were Hindus or Sikhs. Thanks. Desione (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is fine :-) , but perhaps you can also include a major case of militants killing Sikhs.

James M. Lutz. Global Terrorism. Routledge, 77. ISBN 0415700507 (book)
The terrorist attacks in Punjab also extended to Sikhs who did not support the guerrilla and terrorist organization and who favored a compromise with the government of India. The targets included family members of Punjab police both Sikhs and Hindus. In fact, by the 1990s the targets of terrorist more frequently included other Sikhs rather than Hindus (Wallace 1995: 355, 399). The leader of the Akali Dal, the large Sikh party favoring 'collaboration' with the government, was one of the casualties. The fact that the terrorist groups had shifted their targets to Sikhs in an effort to mobilize support within their own community was one indication of declining support among the very group that they claimed to represent.

Made some minor changes to your text. Thanks Desione (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Any problem with my edits? Shalimer (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

oh yes! Perhaps! But if you look at the discussion talk page there is already a discussion on it. Besides you could have added back the removed stuff, but maybe should not have removed my referenced source. By the way, in Religious violence in India, there is no mention of Hindu mob violence against Sikhs in 1984. As you must be well aware, there was only militant violence againest hindus in punjab, and not Mob violence.(Too many reliable sources, just too many) I did not add that, why i did not? do a little thinking and maybe you will find the answer. You could bash A and i will bash B.(Do you want it this way?) Thanks Shalimer (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

O no! the outcome wont be predictable. You can even add that he was a militant from the moon. Besides he is already mentioned as a militant in the article, as is there a mentioning of him a fanatic and a murderer. i didnt have a problem with that, then why should i have a problem with him being described as a militant leader. I think i must get busy with religious violence article. A lot of stuff needs to be done. thank you Shalimer (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to add a well referenced and a reliable sourced citation about Adi Shankaracharya persecuting buddhists? What do you think, whether it belongs there or not?Shalimer (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen bro, whoever you are, i dont hate you. And it is your tone which is presumptive and angry. I will take a deep breath and decide about this whole affair tommorow.take careShalimer (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nair

Mind taking a look here? Harjk keeps deleting large sections of text that he says is "POV-fork-terrorism" (no, I have no idea what that means either) and "useless-nonsense". Apparently Nair marriage ceremonies fall under that category as well. He also claims I'm targeting him personally and has gone on a tirade on that on my talk page, and on one AfD that I nominated (an article he created, and I guess he's falling afoul of WP:OWN) and another that I participated in (another article that he created). --vi5in^[talk] 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Do you think CrazyGuy might be a sock of Harjk? --vi5in^[talk] 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2