User talk:Hkelkar

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived to Talk:Hkelkar/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2

The user Hkelkar is not following Wikiepedia Directives for discussions and NPOV

Regarding Indian Buddhist Movement article I have asked the user to come for specific points that are not acceptable. But he is showing his anti-Buddhist mindset ans it not open for any discussions. Wiki Administrators except Brahmin and Shudra Varnas please take note of this. Dhammafriend 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Movement

I read your anti-Buddhist comments on the article. It is better you concentrate on Hindu Religion, Caste System and Untouchability. That is your religion. Buddhism is a religion based on Equality, Liberty and Fraternity. It is difficult for Shudra Varna Hindu people like you to understand Buddhism and its great heritage. You people are caste ridden and you have forgotten your own Varna-Ashram Dharma. Understanding all religions with their good and bad sides is a good key for religious peace and harmony. Don't be anti-Buddhist Or anti-Christens because these people convert others. Better understand good and bad things of your religion before you blame others. Because of Hindu Casteism and Hindu Untouchability many oppressed people are converting to Buddhims and Christenity. Dhammafriend 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Varna Do you belong?

All so called Hindus must ask a simple question to their own heart 'Which Varnas they belong?' Especially as per Hindu philosophy every Hindu is a Shudra by birth and only by Karma he can change his Varna. So those who are not priests in Temples are not Brahmins by Varnas, Those who are not in Military are not Kshatriya those who are not businessman are not Vaishya so majority belongs to Shudra Varna. So Mr. Kelkar Shudra like you should understand your own religion first. Especillay this is Kali Yuga so all non-priests are Shudra! What is wrong? Its a VarnaShram Dharma preached by Veda and Dharmaśāstra like Manusmriti etc. So in next birth you will certainly become Brahmin. So don't just be anti-Buddhist Or anti-Muslim understand your own religion first. Even Geeta mentions Varna castiesm by Karma etc. Please read the book Shudras who were they? Riddles In Hinduism written by Dr. Ambedkar for more information. Be a positive contributor don't try to hide the truths. All so called Hindus are Shudra then its not a wrong thing. They can certainly become Brahmin by doing good Karma. That is Karma Yog by Geeta. Dhammafriend 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambedkar is not an authority on Hinduism. Swami Vivekanand, Koenraad elst, etc are.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar has single handedly and non-voilently led a Buddhist revival movement in Indis with 22 vows and his strong philosophical weapons. In world Buddhist Conference in 1954 the Buddhist world awarded him the second highest title in Buddhism i.e. Bodhisattva. He faught against Hindu Caste System and Hindu Unotuchability forever his life. So his views on Hinduism are more relevant to understand the present India Buddhist Movement. Dhammafriend 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talkpage re Jawaharlal Nehru

Please regard WP:Civil and WP:NPA regading your last post to my talk page. Thanks.Hkelkar 22:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Nehru a Kashmiri Pandit? That makes him Hindu by default. I did not see any coherent arguments to suggest his athiesm (just one section in the talk page that said "search google"; I did and found no credible evidence to suggest a declaration of athiesm).I did not see any argunemts in the talk page archive either.Care to point me in the direction of any talk page argument or debate to that effect?Hkelkar 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) Please note, in general, that henceforth the religion people were born into, especially for twentieth century figures, cannot be taken as being the religion for WP purposes unless we can cite their self-identification. (2) IF you had read the article itself, much less the talk page, you would have seen two fairly anti-religion quotes in the quotes section. If the first page of google results were not enough for you - surprising enough - try google books for explicit references. THe point is, you did neither, merely removed a long-standing element in the page without checking. (3) I fail to see how pointing this out and noting that it is something that will lead to assumptions by others about your willingness to take the time to check your edits is a violation of any WP policy. Please stop throwing all this around. Hornplease 06:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Test Section

Just testing for better rendering.Hkelkar 06:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India

Unfortunately I have had to remove the speedy tags as it does not qualify as an attack page (nor for any CSD criteria). Your only recourse is to file an WP:AfD - sorry for the inconvenience - Glen 13:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well done on the Poverty in Pakistan article. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian caste system

Look at this diff from the dude writing the "Hindu cate system" stuff [1].Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism as an Ethnicity

Please abstain from mentioning Hinduism as ethnicity as the literate world recognises Hinduism as religion and not as ethnicity..and wherever you mention that write also why and on whose authority do you write Hinduism as an ethnicity.TerryJ-Ho 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources that explicitly debunk the use of Hindu as an ethnicity.Hkelkar 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Godhra Train Burning

Why did you make this edit when I already pointed out that it's in the 9th paragraph? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Upanishad

Please point me to the discussion that you refer to here. — goethean ॐ 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

More discussion can take place. Please do not delete the template again. — goethean ॐ 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now i have my midsem papers. Anyways, i dont have much knowledge about the subject but i will try to help you out once my papers are over.nids(♂) 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ikonoblast

Thanks for that. He's done this before, though I didn't report him then. I guess it had to stop sometime.Gamesmaster G-9 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and the Sikh panth

Concerning the question you asked on my talk page, I will try to add as much as I can. However, I am not greatly literate on that particular topic so I will first have to do some research.

Also, I am not so sure that I have read anything on any one of Guru Gobind Singh's family members being skinned alive, although I have read about his four sons' and father's martyrdoms.

Sandeep S K 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was his younger brother, but I'm not 100% certain. I'll try to look it up.Hkelkar 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in Pakistan

On 21 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article poverty in Pakistan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I know I created it. But you deserve the credit.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the article! Ozzykhan 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in Pakistan table

When you say it renders poorly what do you mean? If it's too long then... yes, that's a problem because there's not enough text to go with it and you can always {{clear}} it. For me it renders perfectly in both Firefox and IE. If you mean that it extends past its section then that is just what happens sometimes with larger data sets. It may not be preferable but I think it is better than having data as a raster image that you have to click to enlarge. If you really wanted you can make it into a show / hide box (like on Template:Cold War) but that seems unecessary. gren グレン 09:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India

I've replied to your comment and striking markup at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poverty in India and am dropping you this message to bring it to your attention thanks. -- Longhair 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Imagine the mess if we all discounted others comments. It'd be, well, it'd be Wikipedia :) Have a nice day. -- Longhair 12:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

mistake with template

I had posted that welcome template to several IP's talk pages, and I feel bad for what it said. I've corrected most of them, but I'm sure other used it in that time too. Oh well, life goes on. Desertsky85451 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi I think you made a mistake with IP Address 129.44.178.88. You accused this person of character defamation on these two Wikipedia articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&diff=77045645&oldid=77042325 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_Gautier&diff=77042032&oldid=74809898 This person did no such thing. Did you make a mistake? Scotsman47 00:00 22 September 2006

Yes it was a mistake. I meant to give it to a particular user but mistakenly put in in the welcome template. I will apologize in the taalk page.Hkelkar 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kathanar

FYI, Kathanar removed the warnings again. zephyr2k 17:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied to your message on User_talk:Bakasuprman. zephyr2k 18:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well

I'm sorry if I came off as abrasive when I first appeared on the talk page. But, if you really want constructive dialogue, why do use section headers like "Indian Buddhist (so-called) Movement"?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Nationalism

Thank you for your informative edit summary. I am not reverting your removal at the moment. I would like you to answer however, why Rana Pratap and Shivaji are treated as identical in their opposition to 'invaders'. While the Mighal empire might arguably be foreign for the Confedracy in that it was from the North, Pratap was fighting an army including large numbers of his fellow Rajputs under the banner of a fairly liberal ruler. Unless you want to remove the reference to Akbar right below? Hornplease 02:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. You are entitled to your opinion about what you call (grin) the 'Second Islamic Empire'. However, the fact that Akbar was supported by a large proportion of Rajputs who were only too happy to fight Rana Pratap suggests that in that case, at least, saying "what he viewed" is appropriate. Please be prepared to compromise now and then! Putting in qualifiers wherever they are appropriate encourages readers to think about whether or not they are justified, which may be helpful in making the points that it is possible you wish to make. Thanks.Hornplease 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You say that only 'Rajput mercenaries' served with Akbar. Please see the Mahrana Pratap article: "Even Pratap's own brothers, Shakti Singh and Sagar Singh, were serving Akbar. Indeed, many Rajput chiefs, such as Raja Man Singh of Amber (later known as Jaipur) were serving as army commanders in Akbar's armies and members of his council. Akbar sent a total of six diplomatic missions to Pratap, seeking to negotiate the same sort of peaceful alliance that he had concluded with the other rajput chiefs. Pratap roundly rebuffed every such attempt. Pratap particularly insulted Akbar's special envoy, Raja Man Singh of Amber (Jaipur)." I think that the qualification is desirable here. Hornplease 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. The fact that his brothers served under Akbar does not make Akbar "domestic". Many Muslims of the upper biradaris perceived themselves as ethnically Arab (still do). So even their perception of themselves is foreign.Hkelkar 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You've also replaced the Elst citation. With a note saying "per consensus". What consensus? I have no doubt Freedom Skies, Nobleeagle, you and Baka agree. (I must admit I havent seen you disagree, so pardon me if I'm a little un-amazed.) But, as AfD has pointed out, on WP consensus is more than numbers, its also what emerges through discussion. The discussion isnt over. Please remove the citation while it continues.Hornplease 07:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

sub category

Should we create a sub category anti-hindu people in Category:Racism. There are plenty of candidates for that.nids(♂) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC) that.nids(♂) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. Although bear in mind that it may be misinterpreted as a witch-Hunt. Precedent per the Cfr on (Category:Anti-Semitic people) for renaming to "accused of..." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Anti-Semitic_people&oldid=62144701).Hkelkar 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus that Hindus can be viewed as a race or ethnicity first. Perhaps "Anti-Indian"?Hornplease 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well many argue that Jews are not an ethnicity wither but anti-semitic people exist under racism. Also, the argument is not whether Hindus are a race but the category is for people who hold racist attitudes against Hindus, which people do.Hkelkar 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but go ahead. Only I think that then people like Dalit campaigners and what not should not be part of any cat, as it is a little doubtful to categorise them as racists, however extreme they might be about Hinduism.Hornplease 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They say the same thing about Ahmadinejad too. The fact remains that if people make hate-speech against Hindus like Kancha Ilaiah then they will be catted.Hkelkar 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we will have to disagree there. Merely "hate speech against Hindus" is not racist. The Hinduism=Judaism analogy only gets you so far; Hinduism is not explicitly an ethnic religion as is Zoroastrianism and Judaism; and I would have thought that its a little difficult to be racist if you're claiming to be the same race. I'm sure that other people will be willing to take you on there, and I dont know enough about it to make pronouncements.Hornplease 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that you dont know, than why are you arguing.nids(♂) 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was rude, and, I think, quite unprovoked. What bit was arguing? Lets recap: I was suggesting to Kelkar that if he wants to avoid a bit of a hassle later, ask around first, as if I didnt think it was an appropriate cat, there would be others, more bold than I, who might agree. If you wished to avoid confrontation, I suggested that consensus first would be a good thing, and suggested that KAncha Ilaiah might be an excessively controversial cat. When Kelkar said he intended to cat him, I merely said that I disagreed with the basis that he had stated - "Hate speech against Hindus" - and indicated that I thought racism would be difficult to prove for everyone satisfying that condition. About Ilaiah, I know that his page has seen a lot of back-and-forth, and I have never been on it, so I dont know whether he views himself as a different race from the upper castes. So I said I couldnt make pronouncements. Now, any particular reason why that somewhat complex interaction was summed up so rudely and inaccurately by you? Hornplease 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that my last one line post was rude. Please clarify.nids(♂) 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What i could make out from your earlier post is that you think that a jew cannot be placed in a anti-semite category, no matter what he does. Am i right in my analysis.nids(♂) 08:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that I spent that entire post explaining I wasnt arguing, it's likely I was talking about your one-line post, wasnt I?

And about your 'analysis': I see no reason why a Jewish person might not be called anti-semitic. However, all forms of anti-semitism are not, I think, considered racist. See, for example New Anti-semitism. So you see, there are subtleties. I merely indicated that I was unaware of Ilaiah's particular stand on race, so I could not speak about it. But "Anti-Hindu hate speech" alone does not a racist make. You also have to have beliefs about who is Hindu. Racism has a very particular definition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) .

So i guess you have a problem if this is a subcategory to Racism. But you wont protest if it is a separate category.nids(♂) 08:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely have a problem with it being a subcat. As a separate category, I'm not really familiar with the term, but if it's used, then I dont think there's anything wrong with the cat. As long as the people in the category are cited as being anti-Hindu with the same level of precision as people in the -anti-Semite cat, I dont see why not.Hornplease 08:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarifications.nids(♂) 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you are facing problems in the Neo-Buddhism article. You can go and ask User:Zora for some help as she claims herself to be a buddhist.nids(♂) 09:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop rv war on Lalu Prasad Yadav and Votebank

I thought I should duly warn you against removal of sources from Votebank as you did here and tagging bogus templates as you often do on many articles and presently has made article Lalu Prasad Yadav your no1 target. You can contribute on wikipedia in many ways.Since it appears you don't have anything substantial to contribute on any article,I advise (but it depends on you) to take rest till your head and heart is relieved of malice.Otherwise you know you may be forced to cool down. Ikon |no-blast 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Vandalism

With regard to your edit summary for diff [2] "I've had enough. The next time a well-sourced statement gets removed I'm going to report it as vandalism.", please substantiate your claim, which to my mind appears to violate a million different WP policies as well as common sense. I note you have not responded to my several concerns about the two quotes under consideration that I raised some time ago on the talk page. If you have an explanation, I would be fascinated to hear it. Hornplease 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan

Hey, I stumbled upon your problem and did some quick research. In addition to the dodgy claims, the fact is that the claims are not made up by random pro-Tipu people. It's worse (in some eyes anyway), they are plagiarised by those random pro-Tipu people. See this Hindustan Times Article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Pakistan

Please see my comments here on this article. It needs a lot of help. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tippu and Rockets

Just an FYI. Although Tipu is often creditted with early use of rockets for military purposes, some of the references that I have seen assert that Tipu's father Haider Ali actually deserves credit. (lthough it may be possible that Haider used the rockets while alive, but Tippu was the real motivating force -- I don't have the answer to that.) I can look up sources if you want. Regards. --BostonMA 11:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not an academic journal, but [3] --BostonMA 11:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I have temporarily blocked Dhammafriend for disruptive incivility. Make sure you do not respond in kind. I told him when he returns to comment on content, not other people; that is good advice for all of us. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this not NPOV

1. No one can refer a user with Islamic Thinkers Society which is linked with terrorism activities. 2. cant tell a user efforts as "rubbish" with the hard work he has done to the article, infact which amounts to personal attack! 3. "Plus, there are entire countries in the muslim world that massacre non-muslims and spread hate against them (Pakistan against Hindus, Saudi Arabia against Christians, Iran against Jews etc.)" this also amounts to personal attacks on a relegion which is indirectly said to a user.

Pls explain why each of the obove "comment on content and not on contributor" does not amount to personal attack on a user.

Mysorebhai11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. this was regarding removal of sources from votebank. Ikon |no-blast 11:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

removal of warning is also vandalism,plz don't repeat it again as you just did it. Ikon |no-blast 12:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A bogus warning of course. User did not learn much from his recent block I think.Hkelkar 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Every one with whom you regularly edit knows actually WHO YOU ARE.So it is rather an easy guess that you have learnt a lot from your past experiences.  Ikon |no-blast 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn;t even make any sense meshuggenuh.Hkelkar 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW again. Ikon |no-blast 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Hind"

I know its Persian. In Hindi, however, due to the Persian influence, it is used as such. I meant Hindi/Sanskrit as Hindi and its more sanskritic base, as opposed to Urdu and its more iranic base (in terms of vocab, not linguistic roots which are both the same). Sorry for the wrong impression. Afghan Historian 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Hkelkar

Please follow the guidelines of Wikipedia I have been telling you that we are two different persons. One liing in germany and other in USA.

All I am asking is before you publish anything related to buddhism on Hinduism pages please come forward with scholarly documents. Who on the earth in 21st century would believe that Buddha was an Avatara of Vishnu. Is there any valid documentation? Why Buddhism should be part of History of Hinduism? Those are completely diffrent religions. One believes in "Purusha Theory" Other does not.