User talk:Viscious81/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


many people of the not too intelligent variety tried to downplay the affair by arguing totally beside the point that the ban didn't matter much, since hardly any Indian can read Rushdie's English.

removing passages like this does not qualify as vandalism, not in my book. you did not give any reasons for your changes. maybe you can explain a little what you want to say on the article's talk page... please don't threaten so quickly and sign your comments--trueblood 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

your style was hardly neutral, Nidhishsinghal. If you are quoting someone, provide your source before complaining that you are reverted. Please see WP:NPOV. dab () 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yep, gimme the link, the quote would be interesting, i think the article already said, that rushdie apologized at some point. maybe somebody took that off. i have a look.--trueblood 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

After the death of Khomeini in 1989, Rushdie published an essay in 1990, In Good Faith, to appease his critics and issued an apology in which he seems to have reaffirmed his respect for Islam. However, Iranian clerics did not retract the fatwa..

this passage is in the satanic verses article, which has a more extensive timeline of the controversy. check out the article, is that enough?--trueblood 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

the opening statement of this section is just the mere fact and i just intended to bring in light the narrowmindedness of many of my fellow indians, who just argued beyond the point to support the ban on rushies books. in my view this was similar to shah bano case. no wise indian would have been offended by renouncing this statement. nids 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

please help if you can[edit]

i read ,amazingly if true, that sunderbans are not natural forestlands, but manmade ones. and most likely to be implanted by britishers during their colonial rule. as a proof of it, it is known that the trees in sunderbans are in a straight line contrary to the principles of nature where they should have been in random order as seen on all the natural jungles. if anyone can vindicate or reprove it by via authetic source i shall be grateful to him email: --nidhishsinghal

re: seeking information[edit]

Hi Nidhish, welcome aboard. There are roughly about 700 admins in English Wikipedia and around 15 Indian Wikiadmins per Category:Indian administrators. Some Indian admins could've been missed out and some people of Indian origin might not be listed there. You can get more info by asking here.

Regarding info about South Indian peoples, you could ask any question by sending me an email. I'll try to give as much info as I can. And I'm not easily offended, so feel free to ask anything. I'll reserve my right not to answer some questions, if necessary. :) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may also be interested in the following links:


Hi - first off, I have no profound knowledge. I'll be only to happy to offer my opinions on any question you have, but this usually degenerates into a sermon, so ask only if you want to read everything I end up writing. Don't accept my POV without cross-examination. If you want to ask more questions, go to "My Preferences," enable your e-mail and then e-mail me through the toolbox below the search bar. I'll answer your question now but WP is not the place for private discussions.

The short answer is - IMO, there is no identity in religion, because it is a quest for God and not about the issues of people. And now the long version, if you prefer to read it:

Buddhism is technically not a religion, because it doesn't have any philosophy of God. All Buddha was talking about was for individuals to attain moksha, liberation from karma. He did not try to explain life and the universe. Buddha rejected most Vedic teachings and ceremonies, so you can't really link Buddhism with the Vedas.

Both Mahavira and Buddha took a lot of crap from Brahmins because of their rejection of most Vedic teachings, which in turn caused the separation of Mahavira, Buddha and his followers from Vedic Hindus. Nevertheless, both Buddha and Mahavira firmly and clearly emphasized that they were not founding a new religion, as did Nanak subsequently.

Indian Buddhism behaved more like a reform of Hinduism, as ultimately it was re-absorbed into Hinduism, which imbibed Buddhist emphasis and practice seeking of moksha, ahimsa etc. Although the Jain leadership remained alienated from Brahmins, it is next to impossible to set a Hindu and Jain apart anywhere in the world. While the Buddhists and Jains may reject the Vedas, they have no canons of their own.

The view held by the British government and later pronounced by a Supreme Court decision in 1960s defines Hindus as adherents of the Vedas, and thus Jainism is mostly described as a different religion. Buddhism is defined by its spread across South and East Asia, and its recent practice in India is mainly by people of Indo-Tibetan lineage and the neo-Buddhism of Dr. Ambedkar's followers. This is the legal answer to your question.

I believe the real spirit of religion, explicitly those practised in India inherently emphasizes the equal importance of all endeavours to discover God. Consider the many different schools of Hinduism - Advaita, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Swaminarayan, Smarta, etc., etc., etc. Consider the Sant Mat and Shamana traditions, and the teachings of Kabir and Sai Baba. Consider that 99% of Hindus have never read the Vedas, and that perhaps the most important text in Hinduism is the Bhagavad Gita, with considerable importance to the Upanishads and Puranas. And consider that the ancient Vedic religion is so different from Hinduism.

All of this is in the shade of grey, not black or white. Unlike in Christianity or Islam, there are no hard and fast rules. And these issues of identity and "separate religions" began with the British census in the 19th century, which caused most ethnic and religious communities in India to seek a separate status for themselves, so they would not be dominated by larger communities. Although there was a considerable gulf between Hindus and Muslims during Muslim rule, most Indians did not behave in the manner they do today. This identity issue is politics, not religion.

I was recently stunned to discover how much Nanak's teachings are akin to the Gita. Yet most Sikhs consider Sikhism a different religion. I don't disagree with them, nor do I feel any need to emphasize a separate identity. To me, the important element is the path one takes to God.

I honestly believe that Hinduism is about God, not people, which is why nobody has thought twice about creating different schools and philosophy. This openness encouraged people like Mahavira, Buddha, Kabir, Nanak, Sai Baba. The Vedas are just a collection of knowledge and not rules - one is supposed to find his/her own way to God. Compare this to Judaism, which declined to consider Christ or Muhammad as a prophet. Compare this to Christianity, which elevates Christ as Son of God and refused to accept Muhammad. To Islam, which criticizes Judaism and Christianity, the old and new Bible testaments, and rejects succeeding teachers like Baha'iullah and Ghulam Mirza Ahmad. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists had no hesitation in listening to Kabir or Sai Baba, nor paying respects to Haji Ali and other Sufi saints. Many Indians who became Muslims and Christians still continue this tradition.

Just cut and paste this whereever you want it:

| align=center |

Aum.svg This user is a Hindu

This Fire Burns Always 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I got my degree from Mumbai University which gives BE in Computer Engineering. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971[edit]

You asked for an assessment, not a peer review; hence, you'll probably have trouble finding the peer review details ;-)

More to the point, are you disagreeing with the "quality" or "importance" at which the article was rated? The two are somewhat different, so it would be helpful to know which one you think is incorrect. Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i think the importance is fine but quality could have been "A" atleast. nids 07:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

re: just for friendship[edit]

hmm . . . i'm not sure if i am the youngest one to have won the wikihalo. i don't even know how nomitnated me. yup, i am a male, and i do have a boyfriend. i had an ex-girlfriend but she broke up with me. oh well. yes, i can lick my elbow.. i found that out just a few days ago (i got steak sauce on it so i licked it off). yeah, i'm both swedish and german on my mom's side. i have no idea what i am on my dad's side (my mom died after i was born, and my dad committed suicied, like, when i was two or something). WereWolf 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mother tongues[edit]

What if Devaki was a Gujarati and Yashoda a Hindi-speaking person? What would be Krishna's mother tongue? And the practical fact is, I know Hindi much better than Gujarati, even as the latter is supposedly my "mother" tongue. I'm glad I could satisfy some of your curiousity. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to answer your second question: check out WP:RCP. They have some software tools to help revert vandalism. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page[edit]

i dont have much knowledge on the subject. but r u sayin, in ur talk page, that the sri lankan government carried out a pogrom. (and against whom). nids 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Black July, it was carried out against the Sri Lankan Tamil minority and anybody who was not a majority Sinhalese such a Indian Tamils and others unfortunate enough to get cought. Thanks for your interest.RaveenS 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

hen halal?[edit]

In response to your question as to whether hen is halal as per strict traditional Islam: Wikipedia isn't the right place to request concrete information such as this because the answer is dependent upon interpretation of religion. Anything about religion is almost always a debatable topic. For a better answer, go to some website which has credibility and answers individual questions regarding Islam. But here is my opinion on it- I believe there is a consensus among Muslims that chicken(also hen, which is just the female) is one of the halal meats. This is because the only explicitly forbidden animal in the Quran is pig (swine). For an authoritative answer: Starwarp2k2 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few people I know are aware of the precise rules of dhabiha halal, and where they arise from. So I did some research to find out for myself, and the results were rather conclusive, surprisingly: the Quran has absolutely no mention of carnivorous animals being haraam. This idea of carnivorous animals being haraam comes from the Sunnah rather than the Quran[1] (see "Hadith of Mohammad (pbuh) prohibiting eating of carnivorous animals"). I verified the first hadith mentioned on that website in Sahih Muslim, Book of Hunting and Slaughter, but could not find a source to verify the second hadith. The first hadith it mentions reads:

"...prohibited the eating of all fanged beasts of prey, and all the birds having talons."[2]

Depending on the beliefs of each individual person, some people consider the Sunnah to be just as authoratative as the Quran itself, and some give it very little weight (it is a result of varying personal confidence, as well as the divide between Sunni and Shia). But regardless of how much weight, more or less, one gives to the Sunnah and Hadith, it boils down to the analysis of the words "fanged beasts of prey". I don't consider a chicken to classify as a "fanged beast of prey", and I'm sure many people agree with me.

Conclusion: The Quran DOES NOT forbid the consumption of carnivorous animals at all. The sunnah, on the other hand, forbids "fanged beasts of prey", and that is where opinion comes in. If you classify a chicken as a fanged beast of prey, it is haram. If you don't, similar to most people, then it is halal. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. Hopefully the research I did was accurate.Starwarp2k2 03:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the Quran does not forbid carnivorous animals. Technically, neither does the Hadith which I mentioned. What it does, technically, is forbid "fanged beasts of prey, and all the birds having talons". That phrase is generally oversimplified to "carnivorous animals".

I do not believe chickens have fangs, nor do they have talons, thus they are halal. I do not have easy access to chickens to verify any of this, but here is the result of my research:

Talons: "The claws in chickens are relatively short and not greatly curved and serve the function of scratching."[3]

Teeth: "A new study shows that chickens, which don't have teeth, still have the genes that make them, and in special cases, those genes can be switched back on." [4]

From what I researched, the chicken definately does not classify as having fangs. It has claws, but the intent and nature of those claws are for scratching and not predatory purposes. This is debatable, but to get a final answer on that debate, one would need to consult a chicken feet expert and seek his/her opinion. Since I am not a chicken feet expert, and I highly doubt that you are either, neither of us can resolve this debate with confidence. With the knowledge I possess, I believe that chicken is halal according to the Quran as well as Sunnah, but it is moderately debatable.

Other than the mentioned, what have you read which renders chicken as haram? And be extremely, EXTREMELY wary of any translation that is abridged. Even a full translation of the Quran from Arabic to any other language lacks a great deal ("lost in translation"), something abridged is guaranteed to offer you many errors. I've even found a GREAT deal of variation, even among two different full translations of the Quran. Wording can be a very very tricky thing.

I do not know enough regarding Sufism to offer an opinion on it, but I do know that "Sufism" is not forbidden in both Quran and Hadith explicitly. There are interpretations of both which may result in the opinion that Sufism does not agree with Islam, but be aware that it is an interpretation of the Quran and Hadith. Neither explicitly forbid Sufism.

I understand that your inquiries, which I see are numerous and not limited to the subjects of chickens, are in good faith. I'm glad to see that people are discussing matters such as religion, there is enough misunderstanding in this world and anything we can do to change that is energy well spent. If you need any further help on any Islam related subject, I do not consider myself an authority but will do my best in answering any questions you have, either with knowledge or research.Starwarp2k2 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[5] [6] [7] [8] hope that helps! ITAQALLAH 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an Questions[edit]

Hi, I have answered the questions you asked on the Qur'an talk page to the best of my ability. BhaiSaab talk 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Trips to India[edit]

I actually have 2 trips to India planned in the next two months. :) First to Delhi, then to Bangalore.--Jimbo Wales 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006[edit]

Hi. As requested, I am just letting you know that I have responded to your questions at Talk:Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Road Wizard 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities[edit]

I'm not sure why you deleted my response about Jerusalem and the Western Wall, but I have reinstated it. --Dweller 16:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a canine halal?[edit]

Hi there. I really didn't know the answer to the question you asked on my talk page - my thinking is no, the beast has fangs and is carnivorous, what people feed it doesn't make a difference - so I asked my friend who is better versed in such matters than myself. He agrees - canines aren't halal, in the same way a vegetarian human still wouldn't be halal. Sorry I'm not much help! Cheers Natgoo 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read the comment above from User:Itaqallah - very interesting. Natgoo 08:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coriolis effect[edit]

Oh I thought you were looking at the storm picture to the right of the introduction when you made that change (hence the edit summary in my revert). That picture shows a purely hypothetical situation in which the air moves solely under the Coriolis effect. However with real cyclones, which is what that sentence is referring to the opposite is true. For an example of this in action look at this animation of Hurricane Rita (in the Northern Hemisphere). The counter-clockwise rotation of the storm is apparent. Hope that clears it up.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead section, which is where I reverted your edit, refers to cyclones. The image you referred to in Coriolis effect is used to demonstrate the section on "Inertial circles" not the section on cyclones, which precedes it. The last paragraph on inertial circles summarizes the difference between the two quite well and states "In particular, cyclones rotate in the opposite direction as inertial circles". If you find the text of that section too confusing to follow, you might want to ask at the Science reference desk for a better explanation, I'm not really sure how to phrase it. The article as it is currently is fine in my opinion.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I also rephrased the images description to make it more clear what it is referring to, hope that makes things clearer.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben here[edit]

Feel free to talk to me about the Bible anytime. I'm a Christian, as you can see from my talk page, so I could only answer your questions from a Christian point of view. I don't know a whole lot about the Quran/Islam, except a few basics. You can reach me by email from my user page. BenC7 10:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Dab[edit]

Hi Nidhish, I'm currently busy, but will have a look when I find time. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nidhish, I had a look at the revert made by Dab. I feel that it was an over reaction on his part to revert your comment made on a talk page. However, if you can look from his position, where he's dealing with nationalistic people who keep raising the same settled issues repeatedly, supported by personal experiences and opinions and not reliable sources, you'll understand why he gets frustrated. Also understand that the protocols in English are very different from what we have in our local culture. It's not correct to expect people from other cultures following our protocols. I'll make a comment in the talk page when possible. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I admit it was brusque to revert the comment on Talk, relative to current WP practice: it was however successful, since nids came to my talkpage, and we talked, and I think I managed to politely point out the purpose of article talkpages, and I even convinced him to drop the puerile u r stuff, so I do consider this incident fully resolved. dab () 09:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad that the issue got resolved. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, Nidhish. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear Nidish On the issue of Dan Brown and the Bible and your reference to Ramayana :Just like Dan's code and The Bible are not the only two references/works for the laity and the scholars to debate over matters concerning the Bible, Valmiki's Ramayana is not the only text to help you decide over the nature and evolution of the Vedic Ritual called Aswamedha. The issue of Sita's Absence was was debated decades ago in Telugu literature. The twist in Ramayana and the issue of Swarna-Sita is an interpolation to hedge the issue of Sita and the ordeal of Aswamedha. How come Draupadi is not spared of this ordeal in Mahabharata? Who came first?Sita or Draupadi?... In Telugu we have a Book by 'Aarudra' called 'Ramudiki Sita Yemautundi?". It means: How is Sita related to Rama or You think Sita is really his wife?(Vishalandra Publishing House, Hyderabad (1978)) .The question at the outset may sound outrageous stupid and dumb.But there is a wealth of unexplored material to suggest that it is not that simple.In telugu we have a popular sayings: 'Ramayanam Ranku,Bharatam Bonku'. It means Ramayanam is illicit sleaze and Mahabharat is a big lie.The fact that it is a very common saying( ask any telugu you come across to find out how popular that saying is.,) the author Aarudra went about findings its roots. He came with some startling revelations: As per Buddhist and Jain sources of the same , Ram and Sita were Brother and Sister.That Valmiki himself acknowledges that he got the story from vyasa who got it from Narada who got i from Brahma..You see ... the story is cannot kill a story or a story teller.. to assuage your fears and complexes. That book is an all time best seller in Telugu just like Muppalla Ranganayakkamma's (born 1939) 'Ramayana Visha Vriksham'(The poisonous Tree called Ramayana).The book is published by M/s Sweet Home Publications, Hyderabad. For Copies : Aruna Publishing House, Eluru Road, Vijayawada –2 Krishna Dist., Andhra Pradesh. You how many Ramayana's are present in the world? As per Buddhist and Jain sources of the same , Ram and Sita were Brother and Sister.You have a popular story that says Sita was afterall Ravan's daughter.Stories ..and more stories..that will need more than a wikipedia to fill all those stories up and give you links as proof.

Please have patience.You can not go around deleting /burning up scholarship , history and memories. Read and read more.Try to be a good human being.Listen,understand,ask,question. That is what an engineer or a scientist is supposed to do. get to the root of it .Not abandon it just because you don't like it. godspeed,harappa 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu/South India[edit]

If you want to know anything about Tamil Nadu / South India you can ask me. I am just an ordinary user and not an adminDoctor Bruno 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your constructive edits on caste.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

this is harappa[edit]

Thanks for calling.I m not aware of MF hussains painting you were refering to . Both Ranganayakamma and Arudra are 'high Brahmins' as Dab would like to classify normal honest human beings.Ranganayakamma won state Sahitya Academy award in 1966. I believe , you are an honest guy and Sundar says you mean no harm.Did you see it at any of the Art ehibitions. Or is it just hearsay? I would like to have a copy of the jpg if you have it just for the heck of it. We have Raja Ravi Varma, drawing the Sita Apaharanam : Sita literally and physically lifted by Ravan. Many devout people stated that it could not have been like that.Ravan would have been burnt to ashes ... Sin or sleaze is like beauty. It is in the eyes of the beholder. That is what all artists and writers claim.I am neither.Godspeed.harappa 10:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead sure.[edit]

'even you seem to agree, atleast in your user page, that you can be a hindu and a athiest'. I do not just seem to agree, I am an atheist, on my user page and everywhere else, and have a right to be like that, and like B.G.Tilak said nobody can take away that right from me (actually nobody is taking it away either), and still love Hinduism and India, and take lessons from Indian mythology. Visit me at Aupmanyav 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Manu Smriti[edit]

Regarding your newspaper clipping of the absense of the Dalits in the original Smritis, could you please edit your contribution into the article? Thank you and have a nice day.Netaji 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and find out if this is allowed. Can you provide me with the name of the newspaper and the date of the article and I can go to my univ library archives and look for a microfilm of it or something. Thanks.Netaji 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have seen citations to articles that are no longer available online on wikipedia. Therefore, if you cite your source according to the rules on Wikipedia:Citing_sources there should be no problems. Netaji 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Babri Mosque[edit]

Continue to watch the page. If you are in danger of 3RR message myself or Netaji or D-boy.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestions, but i would like to stick to 1RR and not resort to revert wars. it would be better if we complain to admin if he just reverts without reason.nids 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user User:AAhmed has popped up, vandalizing the page. Just giving a heads-up.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

re Lakshya[edit]

hi, i don't know about which hero/peak they wanted to depict because frankly I haven't seen that movie myself. According to many, including imdb, it's a loose fiction based on either Vikram Batra and/or Anuj Nayyar. If it is based on the former then it should be point 5140 and if it is the latter then it is point 4875. I think the movie was taken more to showcase a story based on fact rather than rigidly stick to historical details unlike LOC:Kargil which was largely historically correct but IMO was also largely boring and too long. Just as a side note I am actually not a big bollywood buff and but for the film "Border" few movies on Indian wars are both accurate (to a fair extent) and entertaining. --Idleguy 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus on wiki[edit]

If you have any spare time, you may want to check this link. In that link, a user is trying to get us banned. This same user User:TerryJ-Ho has called users like us "fascists" and has called Hindu wikipedians "Hindu taliban".Bakaman Bakatalk 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

He got blocked today. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)



You wrote:site is opening, no ban exists in india

Are you sure you can open web-site?

I think it went off its main servers a few months ago, thus the ban was meaningless. However some of its contents on other servers is still present. The links inserted in the article are to archived contents!

--Vikramsingh 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

It'd be fine if the reference said something like "here's a cloud formation that looks like the FSM", rather than reporting it as an actual sighting (which is what the user did). There are enough people complaining that this article is unencyclopedic as it is that we need to make sure that the tone remains neutral. Thanks, NawlinWiki 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland, but not England[edit]

I am from Scotland :-) I have been to England, though; but I never liked it. Have you been to either England or Scotland, or Wales or Northern Ireland? I have been to India too, since you are from there. :-) IolakanaT 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims page[edit]

As we don't vandalize your page on the persecution of Hindus (that entry, by the way, is written in extremely loaded language, not to mention its lack of decent citations and its opinionated commentary), don't vandalize our page on persecution of Muslims.

Thank you.

--Kitrus 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry I'm a bit confused here, why did you invite vandalism and then tell me to leave you're page alone? --Kapil 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, simply stating 'You are not allowed to touch user pages of other users' was a bit misleading in light of the fact that you invited vandalism. I'm sure you can appreciate that fact, also, I wasn't aware that there was a vandalise once only policy in operation, perhaps you should state this. In any case, I apologise. --Kapil 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Since you also did some edits on the Mimamsa page, you may want to add to the Mimamsa Sutra page.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything either. I saw a dead link on the Hinduism template and decided to rectify it.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Nidish. Why did you move Anti-Hindu to Anti hindu? "Hindu" is a proper noun, and the word is capitalized in all dictionaries. Making it lowercase seems incredibly disrespectful (I'm sure that wasn't your intent). Removing the hyphen also seems inconsistent with common use; 27 of the top 30 hits for "anti hindu" on Google use the "anti-Hindu" hyphenated form. Anirvan 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

nids, keep to Hinduism[edit]

nids, there are only a few Sikh, Jain, or Buddhists who would agree that they are part of the Hindu fold. In India, this can be and is a very excitable issue. It is possible that in other countries, we all come together. But there is no reason for us to start controversies. Even at the legal level, the constitution does not say that Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists follow hindu religion. That they say is that the same laws for some things would apply to all these religions. The Census enumerates them as different religions. I do not understand why you insist on this. New philosophies break from original religion. The Hare Krishnas, the Arya Samajis, and the Sai Babaites are doing just that. That is why my favourite saying is 'Guru ko maro Goli', they do not benefit the parent religion in any way. We should strengthen what we have and be clear headed about that. We should try to recruit new people to the faith. The whole world is open for that. Atheistic Hinduism is very strong in philosophy. Perhaps it can do the trick. Regards. Aupmanyav 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Charvakists and lokayats (whatever they were), never created a new religion, they remained in the fold. Their position was more or less like Atheist Hindus of today. They had differences with the established philosophies, but they perhaps never said they wanted to be out of the fold. So, I would not equate Charvakists with Sikh, Jain, and Buddhists. The case of Sikhs is all the more special. It was only the fifth Guru who said that he is not a hindu, that too in a philosophical way. For an advaitist also, what is hindu and what is a sikh, it is all Brahman (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma), 'Ek Onkar', my humble view. Regards. Aupmanyav 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like a horse[edit]

If we try to force unity like a saddle on them, they would kick like a horse; if we don't, they would be friendly. So ... do not force it, keep their susceptibilities in consideration. Aupmanyav 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:YV VSM 23.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:YV VSM 23.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I created this image from vedas. what is the problem.nids(♂) 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Kancha Ilaiah[edit]

I hope that your comment in the page was sarcastic. If you were serious, I am severely troubled by your statement as I believe it violates civility. If you have hatred for your own religion then I am rather confused as to your position, and would suggest you get a blog or a forum to express your views. Wikipedia is not a place for such things.Okay?Hkelkar 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

May need help[edit]

Hi. I apologize for railing on you like that earlier and for the misunderatanding. I may need some help fending off Holywarriror in the Kancha Ilaiah article as he seems to have gone on a rampage, questioning sources etc with no merit. I believe he may start another reverting spree.Hkelkar 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)