Jump to content

User talk:Intothefire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 211.30.222.155 (talk) at 14:14, 6 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Intothefire, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Xsamix 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism

Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion

Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements

Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus

Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories

Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes

For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 11:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan

Your recent edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage

A tag has been placed on Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – ipso 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I will soon discuss with you all the points you raised. Siddiqui 07:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Hi, thanks to youe comments. I could not understand which of writing made you smile. I respect all relegions and beleive that no relegion supports evil practices and these bad people exist every where belonging to all relegions and their deeds must not be taken that their trait is commanded by relegion.

I appologise if my commnets about khatris in section pre partion people of sheikhan have digusted you. But it is a tarit found every where in business class. Hope you will guide me at wikipedia. With regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

Read your comments. You are absolutely right this stereotyping is so much common that people don't think of going into depth and watch if such things really exist or not, and I have observed it my own case as being a Shia Muslim from childhood I used to here from even my closest freinds the things that had no root had I got astonished when I heard these kind of things about ourselves like shia cut the childern and make haleem from their flesh or shia Quran had 40 parts etc. I happened to view gita, Sri granth sahib and I think that these holy books also represnt the muslim beleif of tawheed and also being chadhar from chander bansi rajputs I can never be claiming any kinda arabian ancestry and beibg descended from a holy lineage can not make myself respectable unless my deeds are good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

wikistalking and harassment

Please do not leave messages such as the ones you did on the userpage and talkpage of user:Szhaider. It construes stalking and harassment, which will not be tolerated. You will be blocked without further warning. Rama's arrow 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid your desire to post that comment is not justifiable - we do not attack other users on Wikipedia or brand them one way or another. Please have a look at WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. I suggest you not add that post anywhere - the context will be clear to anyone viewing the page history. Rama's arrow 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above warning was received by me in response to the following message I posted on user Szhaider s talk page . [[1]]

My refferences to his post were factual , yet he found them offensive enough to make a complaint about me . Made me wonder why he was so eager to have my comment removed from his talk page specially since I had not made any offensive or factually incorrect comment .... a bit ironic yes . [[2]]Intothefire 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Its Abulfazl

Read your comments about article Dulla Bhatti by the way I just created it with minimum information and other wikipedia community member aded worthful information to it. Another thing about the name abulfazl, Abulfazl was not only the writer of Ain-e-Akbari in history and not my name because of him but Abulfazl is the Kuniat (a type of name in arabic) of Hazrat Abbas Alamdar (A.S) the Son of Syedushuhda Imam Hussain (A.S). I just updated you because I felt as if you were mingling this name with the name of one of member of mughal darbar and taunting about an article being written about a rebellion of mughal darbar, by a person having such name. And If I took it wrong please ignore these lines.


Feel Sory

I feel sorry, it may have hurt you but I did not intended it. I hope you will ignore my act. Abulfazl 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject or Wikiportal Punjab?

I contacted User:DaGizza about creating a project for Punjab or possibly even a portal. He approved so I am asking more people now. The project is to be a collaborative effort between Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi and other non-Punjabi people, this should hopefully also generate good feeling between Indian and Pakistani sides. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Portal:Punjab :) — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rohtas Fort

Hi, I had deleted the WP:India tag previously added by my bot as the article seemingly has nothing to do with India. You have undone the deletion and reinstated the tag without giving any reason. Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India? — Lost(talk) 10:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request please explain what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wekipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan .The tag was not originally instated by me ,however I was surprised to see it removed . Intothefire 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was instated by my bot. It picked up all articles within relevant categories and tagged the talk pages with the India project tag. Today while assessing, I saw that the fort has no connection to India except for perhaps its name. Hence I removed the tag. The tag simply means that the project team takes care of the maintenance of the article and hopefully helps it reach featured status. — Lost(talk) 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your response does explain to me the technical aspect with regard to the tag ....however you do not seem to have responded to the larger question you raised viz "Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India?" and my request thereof to you to please explain "what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wikipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan " , await your response Intothefire 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always maintain that we should not get too caught up in the nitty-gritties of a situation. Very simply put, as a member of the India project, would you be willing to devote time on this article to make it better so that information about the article and about India is better transmitted to the wikipedia readers? If yes, go ahead and add the tag and assess it for the future editors. If not, do not add the tag. Spend your energy making another article better. Hope that explains my point of view. Do let me know if you have further questions — Lost(talk) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my response, if an article is about a place/person who was related to India pre independence but shifted to Pakistan later on, the India tag can be added and there is a pre=yes parameter to address such situations — Lost(talk) 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I had heard this word hussaini but really did not know whats the background thanks for informing me, and such informative knowledge information from you is always welcomed. Abulfazl 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again

Again Thanks for your support but I dont how revret the table of household goods which has been corrupted by Tuncrypt. Abulfazl 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

LOL. If I knew about the topic I would have helped. As a reader I am saying is that there are too many quotes in section, I hope you agree to that. Wont do any harm if we move the quotes to wikiquote or possibly a new article. or the section can be turned into a narrative with few quotes and ref. At the moment the section is a quote farm by definition. --Webkami 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta

Can you cite any evidence of him being a slave? I did a search of the page and found the word slavery only twice (the two slavery categories).Bakaman 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this edit.Bakaman 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here let me be more straightforward. I looked at the slave categories while viewing the page, I found no evidence or even mention of the word "slave" before I saw those categories. Since you quickly undid my edit, I was wondering what evidence you had to suggest Ibn Battuta was ever a slave.Bakaman 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but if there is an article on his writings, then that would probably be a relevant category.Bakaman 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi

You can find the attribution to dhimmi here and here at the site. It appears the target site has been upgraded and the links now redirect elsewhere. I can't recall which article the quote is now in, I would happily go back and fix/improve the quality of the quotations if you can remind me where you found them.

As far as dhimmis go historically society has been bigoted and stratified. The indians had their caste systems, Persia had the Aryans and non-aryans, Byzantine had greek and non-greeks, the colonials had the Europeans and the natives, similarly the Umayyads had Arab and non-arabs the list goes on. Take a society, take a history and even further take a period within that history and you will find a "superior social strata" always, especially between conquerors and subject peoples. Among Umayyads the non-arabs were further politically segregated as dhimmis on the basis of religion. What that meant differed according to the differing imperial monetary and political milieu, the definition of what constituted a "loyal citizen"; so it is a mixed bag that we can take up in a more detailed discussion if you prefer. Coming around to the last part of the argument, I would definitely prefer being a dhimmi compared to a colonial era slave and if i was an Iraqi and my nation had to have been conquered by someone I would be happier that the conquerors were the Americans and not someone else. It's all relative to the historical period. I do however agree that "granted" is an inappropriate term in this case and tender my apologies.

P.S: Assume good faith.--Tigeroo 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It may indicate" is his take on the interpretation of what a singular piece of evidence, the usage of "burxan", could imply and only a precursor to two more paragraphs where he offers further supporting evidence of why he beleives that this was indeed behind the concept of "burxan". Also note that this period is the Ghaznavid Period, a couple of centuries after Qasim. From the time of Qasim through the two semi-independent arab states later this status had been institutionalized and this status which I think your query was about can be verified easily from many other sources if that is your concern. Evan as late the Mughals, Dar a shikoh is documented as considering the "upanishads" as one of the books. Reading the source and my sentence again though I see a second issue and a need to restate the sentence vis-a-vis Burxan, my earlier interpretation and understanding seems to have been a bit flawed on it's relevant import.
Just a pointer however, dhimmi started as a means of defining rights of the inhabitants of the state. The criteria applied for regulating citizenship was alleigance to the Islamic ideals and character of the state. i.e. "subjects who live within and are therefore protected by the state (rule of law, force of arms etc.)" but not a part of it. This itself grew from an intial tribal Arab-centric definition. The various forms of interpretation it took is a story of "social evolution" in itself defined by political, social, economic and ideological circumstances. I see no reason to defend any concepts of "social superiorities" wether based on religion, race, creed, language, ideology or sex; those we are better off growing out of in the course of social evlolution. However, it is also a natural tendency of people to "differentiate" and label among themselves wether in some manner. I am afraid looking at "social stratification" in simplistic terms such as denigration or demonization is also not adequate. Even within a monolithic and uniform society divisions are drawn; today it is "nationalism", "border controls", right-wingers left wingers and what-not so we need to be ever vigilant that our egoistic need to assume, or feel that we somehow better/ different from everyone else is carefully managed.
As far as the Kaffir and Momin things goes, I think it is not really a rejection of their heritage or it's acheivements, but a sense akin to that one may feel for the stone age man or a mistake you made in your past. You get enlightened and grow up and then you are better for it. Yes, it is a value judgement on the past but it's much more nuanced that the way you put it. It is equally problematic to view historical ages as some form of utopia. Afterall they were human too, prone to the same frailties and needs and prey to the same vices that the human society is continously evolving to deal with under changing conditions.
My apology was tendered if the sentence construction in the article and the misuse of "granted". I agree with your reasoning for it being inappropiate, that's all.--Tigeroo 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a fundamental problem with a central theme of your last post. The Kaffir and Momin was simply a statement to orient my paragraph on idiomatically and to respond to your comments on the concept you put forth vis-a-vis a view of the past heritage stated as "Day before yesterdays Kafir or Dhimmi is yesterday Momin....degenerate..demonize.." and not really oriented as a blanket equation of kaffir=caveman as you have put forth.

As for the past, yes there are mistakes that were made in the past and that I believe should not be redone today. You would not go back to monarchies, feudal lords, slavery, casteism, serfdom, de-industrialization, burning witches and what not the list goes as human society grows up. So yes, it does entail that you understand your past and gain knowledge of what they got right and what they got wrong. Learning from the mistakes of the past is important if you don't want to repeat them. If your forefathers made mistakes I think it would be extremely ignorant to repeat them. Understanding their mistakes is important as seeing what they got right. Moreover more than one of our grandfathers was indeed a caveman, and calling him that is not disrespectful. Nor is passing a value judgment on them wrong either, i.e. a lot of "grandfathers" in the sub-continent, much closer up the family tree, married really really young girls, and so no believing they were wrong would not be disrespectful either.

All of these things are unfortunately value judgments. Yes, I believe a lot of things that occurred in historical society have no place in modern society. You need of course remember that in a caveman society using flint to start a fire was the absolutely correct way to do things. Would you do that today?? Everything is relative and needs to be accounted for in the proper social, economic, ideological and technological context.

As for ideological value judgments, we make them everyday by choosing a particular religion or even rejecting religion we are saying those who ascribe to a different set are wrong. Consciously and sub-consciously by what we choose to do we make value judgments whether it is capitalism or communism, free society or autocratic rules. Even by emigrating we are saying our country is worse than the others no matter how much nationalistic jingoism we may throw up. Making moral/value judgments is human. The difference between it and bigotry is that you have a sound reason upon which you base that decision rather than a generic disdain. I am sorry, but yes I do believe some people have got it wrong, but it would also be equally insane interpret that statement as I believe that I am perfect.

As far the Saudi, I believe they are wrong too but for a different reason than the one you imply or deduce from my previous post. Simply because by erasing the past you have erased the lessons that can be learnt from them. If it is a mistake of your past, you do not erase it. If you believe it is an improvement then that would at least be justifiable. The fundamental question and shaper of human society has always been "How do you deal with those who you do not agree with?"--Tigeroo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers from a Momin back atcha.--Tigeroo 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arora and Khatri

You are mistaken about my POV, see my edits again, I have been readding information about Aroras onto the page. I have also been converting links from List of Arora surnames to List of Arora surnames on Wiktionary. dishant 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add negative portrayal of Yudhistira on Malhotra? dishant 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's nothing like that and Yudhistira did have a gambling problem, I was just wondering what the necessity was to add that on the Malhotra page. Anyway, since the Mahabharata is one of your favourite books, can you confirm that Yudhistira was NOT a Malhotra? dishant 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Have undone Dishant55555 revert of Intothefire edit and further rvandalism of the Malhotra page to the last NPOV version by Intothefire Dishant5555 seems to suffer from issues as he keeps vandalising that and other pages of users who correct his exaggerated claims of the Luthra family importance in Indian history== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.27.200 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Qasim

Btw, I had removed the Baladhuri comment which I believe prompted you talk about Baladhuris POV in the first place as unnecessary as well. So I hope that addresses the your concern of POV glorification. As an unrelated aside, all histories have a certain POV which is why wiki source prefer tertiary assessments to be quoted that would have hopefully removed the bias present in primary sources. Another reason why I felt the direct Baladhuri quotation initially present was inappropriate and possibly misleading.--Tigeroo 09:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Suppress what?? An exposition on Baladhuri on a Qasim page?? Maybe if you explain the point of the exposition we can acheive the ends you seek, without wandering off-topic into a summary of Baladhuri's career. I assumed the point was to illustrate the POV of the glory statement that was inserted there. Such a statement didn't belong, definitely not in the section summarizing his death.
If you are talking about the condensation of the accounts to get to the point right away, then it is good English writing practice for such articles to place the subject right at the start and develop the details further along the paragraph. Earlier it seemed like there were three accounts instead of the two mentioned in the first line. I do not follow you at all, what is being hidden or suppressed here? I don't see it, but if you enlighten me about it we can come to a ready solution.--Tigeroo 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? First Egypt now Pakistan?? You need to stop thinking in terms of nationalistic or creed based jingo. First Baladhuri then Arabic you keep getting it wrong, check the facts and read the entire source and understand it before you make edits. Correcting your errors and educating you is just tedious but nothing to get worked up about. Life is good.--Tigeroo 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

case conversion

Can you justify capital letters on "clan" or "conversion"? Please use Category:Hindu clan conversions to Islam and give that category a parent category. -- RHaworth 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change what? -- RHaworth 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babbar

Please note i have created this article from the outset with regards to the french rapper of the same name. Rather than arbitrarily edit an existing article you will need to create a new article and add a 'disambiguation' link at the top of the current Babbar article so that people looking for information on your topic will know where to go to. If you or others keep re-editing the article i have created i'll have to refer this to someone who can arbitrate. --Baston1975 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:India

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
  • Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! — Lost(talk) 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intofthefire

I have had busy week at work, I have had no time to deal with fixing the poor quality edits you usually make, but now it is the weekend so I will fix things. Please do read up all those links I gave you and look around for what consitutes good and quality material. Even the quality and contents of your posts on my discussion are an embarassment. P.S Another tip, when you create a new discussion wether on a article page or a user page, it makes like a lot easier to follow what is going on if you add the new content to the bottom of the page instead of inserting it at random any what where.--Tigeroo 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either you have too inflated an ego if thats what you beleive or you are just yelling loud enough to try and distract attention from the shortcomings of your edit. You might even claim I am stalking you or mine and your user talk pages next!! Maybe you should scroll back the history bar on those and check, my interest in those articles predates you even beginning to post your opinions as facts on wikipedia. You didn't attribute the nursery rhyme quoted either!! Bad, bad!!--Tigeroo 09:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsaya

With respect, I find this article to be inappropriate and offensive to Jats and Awans. I have requested deletion for this.

In view of the haste in which it was created, I'd rather believe that perhaps the haste is the reason for this mistake and not a deliberate attempt to undermine an entire Awan community. You are also incorrect to my origins, I am not an Awan. I shouldn't have to be to take offence at what is written about another respectable tribe.

You are obviously passionate about your area of interest. What I would advise is take your time, do some proper research and try to be cohesive.

I suggest you curb your personal opinions and bias towards the Muslim community. They do not all hate their Indian counterparts or their Indian heritage! But simply stating one sided cases and articles trying to remind them of their ancient heritage does, as Malik Awan stated, ignore their current Islamic identity which they predominantly hold more dearer than their lineal identity. Try and understand this bro, and perhaps Inshallah you will help create a cohesive respectful bridge between our respective communities/nations rather than (indirectly/directly) offending them through insensitivity.

My job is to advise, whether you endeavour to aid this cohesion, or ignore this and continue is up to you my friend. God willing, you will understand for the best. Enjoy the weekend.--Raja 12:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest post is quite troubled, (as I can see from your other work, but hey...) either way, I statde the rest was your decision. Eithr way, I tried.
Your statement that you didnt realise we work in teams I found rather confusing, but more so, sad. If it's because I gave Tigeroo a Barnstar, it was out of respect for his contributions in area that is important, rather than an opinion of him personally. The fact YOU just compacted me and whoever you thought else was included into a team, is evident of your mentality, not mine. I dont request/expect you to understand this, so in the least, considering your immature response, I request that you dont post any further accusations or ill derived opinions on my page.
I am still open for help regarding tribal history wherever you deem me fit and I'd like to think that you are available for the same. Personal opinions and assumptions are unproductive, but thats just my estimation, you will no doubt have your own. --Raja 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hamsaya

Intothefire

You recently left a message for me, which I have only just read. To be honest, I am far too busy to re-engage in a debate over this issue. I made my feelings abundantly clear vis-à-vis this matter (including commenting on the source material you keep referring to in defence of your article) and if you still cannot comprehend why I, along with others, quite rightly nominated your article for deletion, then so be it.

As for the analogies you provided, they bear no relevance to the points I made. And as for your desire to record "the Hamsaya practice" the "practice" you refer to is no longer practiced as was outlined by your article (and this has been the case for quite some time now). Furthermore, the groups that your article referred to have not been addressed as Hamsaya (an appellation rooted in ignorance and prejudice) in the NWFP for a considerable period of time. In fact, presently, Awans in the NWFP are widely referred to as Qazi by the Pathan community, something that I observed during my stay in the NWFP.

You say that you did not set out to cause offence - I am willing to accept that. However, your article was also erroneous - particularly in allusion to Awans residing in regions of the Punjab bordering the NWFP - and highly problematic (and I don't have time to go into this again. Suffice to say, I along with others also pointed out that defining the term Hamsaya would realistically involve including the actual, widely used and innocuous, Hindi-Urdu definitions of this term, which in itself throws up problems).

By the way, if you have carefully read through comments I have made elsewhere, you will discover that I am not amongst those of Pakistani origin who denigrate or stereotype the Hindu community, nor do I have a problem conceding that the majority of Pakistanis, including those who ancestors arrived in the Subcontinent from Arabia and Persia, can to varying degrees, trace their ancestry back to individuals who professed Hinduism.

Of course, there are just as many individuals in India who create crude stereotypes regarding the Muslim community as there are Pakistanis who indulge in negatively stereotyping the Hindu community.

I have nothing more to say on this subject. Malik Awan 1 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

See my reply on the Bomba dynasty. I agree, co operation is best. Let's hope this begins a better relationship dude. I dont bare any grudge against you, if anything, I want people from both sides of our countries to appreciate each other better, perhaps through this sites info we can. But we must follow rules etc, and hopefully, Inshallah we will get there. Until then, good luck mate.--Raja 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interesting in your Political motives (which I might add are becoming increasing apparent, so much for my blind trust in your words...) but what I do care about is your misrepresentation of Muslim tribes. You never answer any questions to your assertions and yet, you continue to make them? It's up to you, if you want to work together in a neutral way, I am up for it. If not, dont expect me or any other users to sit back and watch you pretty vandalise pages with nonsensical POV original research. --Raja 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hahaha! I really liked the "ai rokom cholba na!!" bit. Hehe...nice. Nice to meet you.

Regarding the removal of cuisine section in Delhi, the article follows Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states. Both the projects have acted as effective guidelines for producing multiple Featured Article.The guidelines suggest to incorporate culinary specialties/notabilities within the Culture section.

Delhi is also a featured article. Any major changes in a featured article should first be discussed in the talk page of the article, per the general norms in wikipedia (no rule though). So I reverted your additions. Basically if cuisine of Delhi (or' for that matter any state or city) is discussed in a separate section, many other topic deserve similar other devoted sections. As a consequence, the article would become huge. Wikipedia, in general, follows Wikipedia:Summary style. Have a read of it. Let's rather try to build up nice daughter articles, and provide links in the main article. For example, Indian cuisine can be considered as a daughter article of India! Hope this clears things. Cheers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I saw you complain on the talk pg about me removing the word terrorist and replacing it with militant. See this policy WP:TERRORIST. IP198 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA alert

Hello User:Intothefire. I have responded to the alert placed by User:Tigeroo placed at WP:WQA. My response can be found here. I hope you will take what I say under advisement and will ask me any questions you might have. Sarcasticidealist 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your password

I'm not a technical expert, but I suspect that either somebody else made the edit from the same computer that you've been using (while you were still logged in) or your password has been somehow compromised. I'd suggest you bring the issue to the Wikipedia:Help desk; there should be someone there who can answer your question better than I can.

In the meantime, I've reverted the edit. Sarcasticidealist 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at MbQ

I'm sorry you have to deal with that kind of treatment. Don't give up defending appropriate content. Arrow740 05:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions by Tigeroo on article Muhammad bin Qasim

Your protection banner on this article was till the 22nd ....on the 23 when it was removed there were blanket deletions by user Tigeroo again . This blanket deletions of sourced content by Tigeroo has been going on for months ...I have been making efforts at concensus building on the talk page ...how is this deletion by Tigeroo going to stop ....what is the next step ?? Please advise .
Cheers
Intothefire 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach with this. I would not be surprised if the article needs to be protected again. -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri

Just want to let you know that IP struck again: [3]. I reverted it already. Is there some sort of dispute there? -WarthogDemon 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll watch the page for awhile. :) -WarthogDemon 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about this edit?. -WarthogDemon 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for dropping by. First of all I'm happy to inform you that I am not the mysterious ip User:70.174.180.38 . I am not new to Wikepedia and my edits in the Kshatriya articles are documented under this name if not Maharaj Devraj, I did not agree with the way Khatri was put into the Suryavanshi section, so I removed the demeaning comments but I did not remove the Khatri link out of the section, check in the history. Besides, I do not edit articles which I do not have any knowledge upon and if I disagree with what is written in an article I would discuss it rather than vandalize. For that reason, I have removed your reference to my name in the page of your friend User:70.174.180.38. By the way, where then should Khatri be placed in the Kshatriya article, Suryavansh or not I personally do not know, or under Other Kshatriya tribes perhaps?? it would be great if you could look into it and fix the page for what is most appropriate. Checking from his contributions I would guess that User:70.174.180.38 is a Khatri himself, as for myself I am a Kachwaha Raja, not Maharaja as you have suggested, that would be my uncle. Cheers. Devraj Singh 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well its not entirely trash it holds some little truth, but the point i want to make is you and others would be quick to shoot down my edit but what about this bloated, falsely boastful article(jat) with some false references(how low), the incredible length, and some false facts, will those be corrected? the articles already not credible, so comments like mine wont look too out of the ordinary there.

cheers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Intothefire&oldid=162664577"