Jump to content

User talk:Hkelkar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
BhaiSaab (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
BhaiSaab (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 241: Line 241:
You got all of us banned for one year. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You got all of us banned for one year. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:This matter is no longer in our hands. There is no time. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:This matter is no longer in our hands. There is no time. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:You're right. I did say that I was willing to go down with you, and although I am still willing, I never expected it to happen. I wonder if you will confess to being the same person. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:You're right. I did say that I was willing to go down with you, and although I am still willing, I never expected it to happen. I wonder if you will ever confess to being the same person. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:58, 9 December 2006

Archive

Archives


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

interesting discussion --D-Boy 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"South Asian Caste System" anyone? Bakaman Bakatalk 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BAd Faith Assumptions

Dear HKelkar, first of all thanks for pointing me to the WP:AGF and WP:Civility. I will keep them in mind. But please note that the article in question, has no reference to caste based struggle as discussed on Talk:Indian_caste_system#.22Woman_raped_on_Train_by_Dalits. I suggest keeping in mind the facts we should try to remove the misinterpretation of facts. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hkelkar as per the article the crime has indeed been committed by dalit party activists, but where is the point of caste based struggle in it, see the news paper report [[1]]. Didn't we discuss all this on talk page of the article in question. The article already has many short comings, why induce another. Thanks and looking for your kind cooperation ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HKelkar, thanks for pointing me to Burakumin, I agree there should be no whitewashing under any circumstances to present a rosy picture. But the caste based angle in the article in question is more of criminal nature; and the power, the criminals in them, assert is that they are part of a political entity, maybe governed by people in power, who need their muscles during elections and for gathering crowds, and in return will save the criminals from the law of the land. Then by this yard stick all and any crimes committed by any one belonging to any caste, political party for whatever reason would merit a mention in the article. Just because the world caste/ ambedkar/ dalit appears in the news should not merit its mention, as I still cant see any relation to caste struggle here. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a balanced view is required, then why not put up something that is actually related to article and has some element of caste struggle. What about this in a balanced manner [[2]] in place of what is already there. I request you to present some mention of real caste struggle and not crimes by (substitute your favorite word here dalit/ brahmin/ upper caste etc). Cheers ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what about removing the section in question.ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of amusing.--D-Boy 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HKelkar.

Thanks HKelkar, I am short of words to describe the wrongs. There are some websites which allege that Hindu religion has it's roots in christainity. This is sufficiently irritating. Some anonymous editer included these (external) website links in the article. Which I removed. The same found place on talk page, seeking permission for inclusion in article by the anonymous editor. I removed these links, as through subversive means, the links were placed for viewing who view the article. The discussion for inclusion was clearly opposed by all. I removed the links from talk page. There was no objection from anyone. After some days Abecedare restored the links. I remove them, he reverts and give me a 3RR notice. Then, he goes for admin community views. I fail to express and object to the subversive way. I fail to understand the intention of Abecedare. Should the Wikipedia policy conveniently interpreted and used for nefarious activities?

swadhyayee 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Rock Star

Hi Hkelkar, I saw the article and the latest edits. We must try to constructively discuss the changes and work on improving the article. Currently, it looks in a mess. The section on Hindutva views and Dalit views is unreferenced and POV. Do all Dalits have the same view. And whose view is it actually. I think, we need a cited historical scholarly view.

Anyway, we'll talk more on that. I have repaired the e-mail link. It's working now. Mail me. Bye for now. Keep rockin' --NRS | T/M\B 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true HKelkar? I would never like anyone to be blocked for an year and would also not like someone to give such cause. God Bless You. swadhyayee 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Refs

Note: These refs are for my research purposes only, please do not type between them.

These should provide some perspective on why many Pakistani editors are arguing over Indian history on wikipedia.
School Books That Teach Children To Hate in Pakistan:
The Menace of Sectarian Education,Pakistan's NW Province Makes Quran Lessons Compulsory - From the Wall Street Journal
The subtle subversion:Islamic Fundamentalism and Brainwashing in Pakistan (news today)
Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:
Pakistan, A Failed State (BBC)
Pakistan once again terrorism central
Just whose side is Pakistan really on?
SECTARIAN IDENTITIES OF MUSLIMS:" a house divided” - by R Upadhyay
MINORITY SEPARATISM IN INDIA: THE MUSLIM MINORITY - B.Raman
Of the 500 missing Pakistanis, 375 are in Gujarat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkelkar (talkcontribs) 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

ArbComm

Hi Hkelkar - there's a post at WP:AN about your current editing - I've also sent you an email about it. It's probably best if the only editing you do is within your user-space, at least until December 19th. Just create sub-pages if you want, to work on additions to articles. Thanks Martinp23 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This pak as been untagging indus valley with the indian tag on it. Could use some help on this. Szhaider (talk · contribs) seems to be behind it. He takes the tag off harappa civilization and other indic historic sites as well.--D-Boy 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian caste system

I didn't realize there was more about mobility in the criticism section. Thanks for moving it up. BhaiSaab talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated WP:3RR by removing part of what I just added, i.e. "individual mobility among castes was generally rare." I ask that you undo this. BhaiSaab talk 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no 3RR here. I'll double check my edits though since you say that. BhaiSaab talk 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw. He came back.--D-Boy 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You problably should have called the FBI on him. I know I would have.--D-Boy 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on the use of indic scripts.--D-Boy 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>_<!

Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Proposal--D-Boy 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work? Szhaider (talk · contribs) is being a bit stubborn.--D-Boy 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding Indian caste system

I have not protected the article, but be aware that excessive reversions of the article may lead to a 3RR block. Take the discussion to the talk page to avoid that. -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Indian caste system/Mediation (December 2006) and begin populating the "issues to be mediated" regarding the Indian caste system article. Also, please sign below Parties' agreement to mediate stating that you "agree" to mediate or "recuse" yourself from the dispute resolution process. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of people by caste--D-Boy 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra

No matter what Indian PC media calls it shouldnt it be titled 2006 Dalit riots in Maharashtra raher than 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra?

P.S I was just being sarcastic on the other article! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reversion

Sorry mate, it looked like a deletion of material. You did nothing wrong and my reversion was accendental. Thanks for your understanding, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your encouragement and supporting of users to add commentry...

Do not encourage/support users to add commentary to wiki articles. I find it pretty I ironic you remove comments on talk-pages, which are directed at you, and consequently. You support users who add very silly and childish commentary into wiki articles. Please do not do this. Or I will have to issue you a warning and also mention this in your RfA pending case. You should take a break from edition wiki articles for a few months. --StreetScholar 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You support users who add very silly and childish commentary into wiki articles.

Look who's talking! Moveon chavboy People living in glass houses shouldnt throw stones at others! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Buddhist Revival

The people who are doing violence are low-caste-Hindus. They are not Buddhists. The India Buddhist population is less than 0.8%. So restrict yourself before making false claims. Pkulkarni 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0_0

Intrguing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hindushudra

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pkulkarni

I am a member of Sechdule Caste from India and consider all Indians as Shudras. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

السلام علیکم

hello as-salam alaykum Hkelkar Please forgive me, English not is perfect. You seem to write many anti Islamic remarks and have bias viewpoint towards India & Israel. Please keep your biases off Wikipedia جزخ اللہ خیر —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esteqlal (talkcontribs) 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

````

I'm sorry, personal attack? There was no personal attack, rather just a constructive criticism from one Wikipedia editor to another. Also, please refrain from deleting my posts on your talk page, as you do not own them. (You may archive this page, however.) Also, please remove your silly writings from my talk page. :) I hope you keep these (constructive) criticisms in mind!

User warned [3][4]

for making personal attacks. Hkelkar 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering

Are you biased? Do you believe you are bias-free? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.151.18 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Apology

Hkelkar, I'm very sorry I accused you of Wikistalking. It was poor judgement, a poor reading of Wikipedia policy, and in very bad faith.

I also apologise for the initial comments I made. I assumed you were doing a complete hatchet job, I barely read the articles in question, and I misread them in my haste and uncalled-for anger to boot.

Furthermore, I attempted to pit you and Ambroodey against your fellow editors. This was not only incredibly disruptive, but trollish on every level. I tried to use a painful topic for my own purposes and forced you to defend yourself.

In reality, I have never treated you correctly. I should have responded to your second post to me as a good faith attempt to work with me. I didn't discuss the article with you, and try to work out any differences we had.

I did these things out of my arrogance and ignorance of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. What I did last night, however, is simply indefensible and wrong on a basic human level.

Again, I humbly apolgise, and I sincerely pray for your happiness, if not forgiveness.

NinaEliza 08:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in modern India

India Buddhist revival/Dalit Buddhist Movement/Buddhist Revival in India has been moved to Buddhism in modern India. utcursch | talk 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might be aware that Pkulkarni (talk · contribs) and his/her socks have been blocked (see Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement). User:Pkulkarni (with his sock accounts) was the only person opposed to an article with the title Dalit Buddhist movement or Ambedkarite Buddhism. Other involved parties such as User:Hkelkar, User:AMbroodEY, Nat Krause[5], and NinaEliza[6] support for separate article about Dalit Buddhist movement. So, I've moved the article to Dalit Buddhist movement. The content about non-Ambedkarite Buddhism has been removed and addded to Buddhism in India[7]. Sorry for all the confusion. I hope I'm finally fixing this. Thanks. utcursch | talk 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes in Gujarat Riots Page

What can one construe of your recent edits where - where you have 1. removed the title of the HRW report entitled "We have no orders to save you.. to HRW report while you have added a blog on Sulekha to the article?Please change it back to the original title and remove the link to the Blog MerryJ-Ho 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • World’s biggest and most popular online community and networking site
  • Most popular network of city portals in 60 cities worldwide
  • Most popular blogging site in the world
  • Most popular online classifieds service in 60 cities around the world
  • Most trusted and popular online ticketer for events and movies in North America
  • World’s only digital marketplace for premium content
  • The most popular online advertising medium to reach NRIs.
  • Only website whose creative expression (of its members) was published a book by Penguin
If you think SAAG is notable put it..don't threaten..MerryJ-Ho 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole set of articles supporting that there was and is a rampant Boycott of Muslims in the BJP ruled state of Gujarat.I am copying them again.Please revert the changes back to where they were. MerryJ-Ho 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]After riots, it’s economic boycott call -

  • Hkelkar - Below this is tantamount to Assuming Bad Faith and Original Research as well as threatening to use WP as a Soapbox.Make sure that you understand that I am not baiting you, just in case you wish to justify any action based on these edit of yours MerryJ-Ho 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar's comments follow: Dude, give up the propaganda soapboxing. None of these incidents happened in the year in question.Hkelkar 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)And no, I will not restore your egregious misrepresentations. The "boycott" is not a riot, it's a peaceful act so it does not belong in the article. If you do that then I will post a deluge of articles showing how Muslims in Gujarat are in collusion with Pakistan, the rise of fundamentalism, and the terrorist attacks on Narendra Modi. So do not go there buddy. Hkelkar 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm using wikipedia as a soapbox???What the heck^H^H^H^HGehennem have you been doing?????Hkelkar 11:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is apparent you are sopaboxing - Please don't use this contemptuous language.These kind of "heck^H^H^H^HGehennem " don't add any value to the discussion MerryJ-Ho 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sulekha and Sabrang – any of those websites cannot be used as reliable sources. Please read WP:RS properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hkelkar, Only to you buddy MerryJ-Ho 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand

I simply never read the article, until the title changed. I still haven't read the whole thing in detail, but I believe it.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Page and Islamism

You have a section on the arbitration page in which I assume you will attempt to prove that "User:TerryJ-Ho supports Islamism..." My question to you is: so what if he supports Islamism? BhaiSaab talk 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your most recent edits to anti-Hindu and Persecution of Hindus, the link you supplied was to Hindu Unity, which does not satisfy the wikipedia criterion for WP:Reliable Sources. However, the book is real, published by an accredited source and the author is an accredited scholar (Gurbachan Singh Talib) and the book is verified by a google books link. Therefore, I changed the citation accordingly (it's the same book, just from a more reliable source). See these diffs [15][16] Thanks.Hkelkar 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

209.197.162.110 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented on the Hinduism barnstar proposal I recommend you looking at the new designs introduced by User:Priyanath. Thank you. GizzaChat © 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking leeways when it suits

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=prev&oldid=92839450 Your recent edit are based on two editorial opinion articles - which you dont mention in the article while you vociferously fight for clarification of comments attributed to Guardian UK as opinion-editorial - Is that not double standards and raking WP policies when it suits your position and ignoring them when others are not looking.MerryJ-Ho 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

You got all of us banned for one year. BhaiSaab talk 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is no longer in our hands. There is no time. BhaiSaab talk 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did say that I was willing to go down with you, and although I am still willing, I never expected it to happen. I wonder if you will ever confess to being the same person. BhaiSaab talk 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]