User talk:Haphar/Archive 4

User talk:Haphar/Archive 4

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please join discussion

Please join discussion on Rama's arrow's talk page about Manmohan Singh article- Kind regards--Sikh historian 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on this talk page

Hey, I saw what you wrote on Talk:Islamophobia about those horrible comments and verified your claims. I'll see how those comments match up with Wikipedia policy and report them to an administrator. If you see any other comments of this type, anywhere on Wikipedia, please feel free to report it to an administrator, or even me. Khuda hafiz, Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Indian Nationalism

This is your first warning.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Netaji 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have made a personal attack on my talk page here. Persist and I will report you without delay. I have been patient with you so far, but I will not be if you persist in insults and ad-hominem attacks. Are we clear?

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Netaji 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct procedure in the case of source dispute is to put a fact tag. You deleted it. That's vandalism.Netaji 11:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

With the user above actually trying to get more credible sources on the issue, it is clear he reaslises that the sources were not credible and my editing had logic, he however continues to claim vandalism as well as gives warnings. If you look at the history of his interactions one would find this pattern with multiple users who have a POV that is different from his. Haphar 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Netaji

I wrote to you via email. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Actually no. :) Once you send it, it's gone. I will say that I blocked him per this. I will say. You were a bit incivil yourself in your initial post to his talk page today. Please be careful. But. That doesn't excuse his behavior. What got him blocked more than anything was this declaration that he wasn't going to AGF anymore. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please

Refrain from personal attacks such as the ones you put on Subhash's page after he got blocked and also since then. Other uses making attacks against you doesn't absolve you against making attacks against others. It doesn't work that way. So. Take a deep breath and calm down. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have said being incivil, not personal attacks. In the end, it's just as against policy and it's still something to avoid. You had mentioned to me that it's hard to be civil at times because of what people say to you or how they act towards you. Please read this essay. It's a very nice essay on how to act when things get hot around here. You were blocked just 2 weeks ago for basically engaging in a hot argument. You just need to learn how to stay cool in situations such as this. Postings such as this are what I am talking about. Like I said. Take a breath. Take a few days off from here. Subhose is blocked for 2 weeks and there's a good chance that it'll be made longer once the CheckUser goes through. So. Take a little time off. Relax. You are a good editor. You just need to learn how to stay calm around here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! :) I do emphathize. I've been involved in many many battles such as this in my time here. Probably too many. So I understand how it gets. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

i think he is a sockpuppet of Subash_Bose... I have provided evidence here... evidence --Geek1975 09:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am no sock of any user. The next accusation you make, I will report you.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

I'll reenable it. I had disabled it due to a vandal spamming my account. If you email me now it should work. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Caste

While your edit [1] tried to cleanup the worst points, I've decided to do a more radical revert. See Talk:Caste#Dalits_attacking_temples. --Pjacobi 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re

When did I call you a sock? Cite diffs for that. Lackey? In case you didn't know I also told Neta to lay off and supported Ramas arrow and other users in telling him to restrain the rhetoric. I only speak when he gets blocked because people cough*(User:Geek1975) and other users drag my name in and start things like RfC's, Cabals, and Sock accusations against me. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have an actual response?Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dillon

Category:Sikh politicians - Changed. The other links did not show a pic of him.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please....

refrain from engaging in inane mock sarcasm as you did on Subhash talk again. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you assume that I have read his edits and willfully ignored his transgressions again and that I have been protecting him. A comparison of the block logs tells the truth. As to my warnings, it is just a warning, rather than a block as Subhash gets when he crosses the line. Referring to your self-justification for your counterattack to Subhash, please direct me to the part of WP:NPA where counter-attacks are permitted - and also any reader can easily see that Subhash was blocked for longer, and frequently by myself. Anybody who isn't blind or biased can see that Subhash has been taken to account more than you have. If you look at my contrib log you will see that I have been away during his latest tawdry edit, for which he is now blocked. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not countered Subhash but Baka ( now let's hear him say that you accused him of being a sockpuppet) in the discussion, and saw no warning from you ( and still see nothing) on his accusing me/ calling me a troll. Thank you for your action on Subhash. Haphar 09:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash has been blocked for 96 hours anyways. If you post bogus warnings or sarcastic and caustic rants I will remove them.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Charity begins at home so first please do it to your own bogus warnings [2]( for which you have been warned in the past). Also see no attempt by you to remove all the bogus warnings Subhash has indulged in. On my page [3] as well of others[4] and [5] Any reason for this differing standard ? Haphar 09:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease removed my comments from a talk page. Kennethtennyson blanked a whole section of Indian nationalism, Yeditor called many users "Hindu vandals". I dont know or care of his warning to you, except that you probably deserved it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure which is why both you and Subhash have got warnings for leaving vandal tags on people's talk pages. :-). Haphar 06:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys all stop sparing for at least a day? It's just incredible to me. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I really wish that you would take this more seriously. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please

If you think that Subhash and Bakasuprman are the same person, then request a CheckUser. Otherwise, stop accusing them of being the same, as you did here and here. If you have evidence, present it at WP:RfCU. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki and Arya

Haphar, my advice to you is dont get sucked into a conversation with these guys. You will only end up wasting a lot of time. "Vandalism" seems to be some kind of tantric chant for these guys and they have no idea where and when to use it. In their view, all non-Marathi editors who edit articles related to Marathi and Maharashtra are 'vandals' and all the edits they make are 'vandalism'. These are people who cry hoarse that the Kannada article is Kannadised!! LOL :D I am tempted to throw an accusation that the Marathi article is Marathi-ised, but then I'd have to stoop to levels I am incapable of, to do or say something like that.

As for the other articles(Kannada, Rajkumar, Kaveri, Rashtrakuta etc.,) that these guys mention on every damn talk page they edit, I request you to please go through any or all of those articles if it pleases you. If you find any instances of 'Kannadisation'(whatever that means) or any instances of POV pushing on my part, please let me know. If you dont find any, I request you to please let the admins know. Admin Blnguyen has some background about these guys and I request you to please drop him a line about the blatant misinformation campaign these people are indulging in. Sarvagnya 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kannadaization?Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, All the topics about which this rowdy user Mahawiki is brawling about are topics that are part of Karnataka culture. Kannada is the language of Karnataka, if this page does not talk or Kannada, which page should? Marathi page?. Kaveri is a river born in Karnataka and flows thru Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. When Kannadaigas and Tamils (who live in Tamil Nadu) are not fighting on wikipedia over this, who is this Maharashtrian to comment on Kaveri. Kannada culture finds its birth on the banks of Kaveri, Tungabhadra and Krishna rivers. If we dont talk of Kannada and Karnataka on this page, who should? Mahawiki a stranger to South India? Rajkumar is the doyan of Kannada culture who brough pride and dignity to Kannada film industry. If we dont talk of his contribution to Kannada , who should? The people of Bombay who patronize the Hindi Film Industry? Rashtrakutas were an empire that found its birth in Kannada territory, encouraged Kannada culture, language and literature. If we dont write about Kannada literature and the glory of this empire who should? Maharashtrians who speak volumes of the Maratha empire and none else. Moreover, the pages on Kannada and Rashtrakuta comes with fully referenced citations from well know scholarly sources. Who is this guy to comment on these pages when we are not commenting on Maharashtra, Maratha, Marathi and Maratha empire. This is a clear case of prejudice and hatred. He has been harrasssing people and being uncivil for the fun of it. He has been blocked before for his uncivil manners.

Dinesh Kannambadi

bits starting to fall off Wikipedia?

it's difficult. this isn't just about a crisis of various special interest groups anymore. I suppose that those of trollish disposition are taking advantage of a moment of weakness in the overall organisational structure of Wikipedia. A crisis, in a nutshell; please see the content of User_talk:Giano for my take on the bigger picture. dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin

It's a good question. I sometimes wonder myself why I bother. :) But you know, I became an admin to help out the project by deleting unwanted pages and all of that. At first, I got way too heavy into POV battles. At one point, I had 3 Arbcom cases going at once. Since then, I've slowed down quite a bit. I try to have just 2 or 3 things going at once. And yes, I do alot of editing. Alot of admins don't, sad to say. But I try to balance the 2. If you look at my contribs, I do alot of the cleanup projects, like stubsensor (removing the stub tag from articles that don't need it) and also wikification and all of that. Without doing that stuff, I'd go nuts. I will say that this week is unusual. I usually get a post or two a day on my talk page. I got 10 new headers a couple of days ago. I just try to roll with the punches, but yes, it's difficult sometimes. And I do look at articles like Anarchism and others and I wonder if it's too much to handle. I've learned to say no sometimes and to not get into arguments with people if it's possible.

Anyway, I appreciate the question. I do wonder why I bother sometimes, but then I go do a cleanup project and I'm ok again. Just a matter of balancing the 2. But yes, sometimes I am ready to throw this laptop at something. lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ReplyDineshkannambadi 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reply. The problem with this user in question is inspite of quoting reputed sources, providing reference books, he is convinced that the pages under question is a fabrication. If you read the discussion (if you have time time, since it is long) you will see a clear tendency to discard any information that is not Pro "his liking" and a habit of discrediting well known authors by calling them names. We are talking about winners of "Padma Bhushan", "sahitya academy awards" etc. Clearly the user in question is not very knowledgeable about history nor does he have the habit of reading books, which is fine so long as he does not discredit months worth of work put in by others. Brawling seems to be the way matters are resolved by some people. Hopefully he will focus on issues that he is really interested in and can understand. In the meantime we have to continue to contribute and not let the world stop us from doing the right thing.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Kannadi

Thanks for ur reply.Kannadi is not a offensive term.The people of Karnataka are known as Kannada or Kannadis here.Insistance of kannadid word is like insistance of "Bhartiya" for Indians or "Marathi Manoos" for Maharashtrians.I*f u dont believe me,see-

• http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%80&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
• http://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/कन्नड

Since the discussion between me and Arya is personal we are free to talk in any language we want.You are requested to not comment on our personal conversations. I was amused to see Sarvagnya being too cosy with u for 'dropping a line' about me in admin's talk!So should I sue him for that?I would request u to be neutral.

mahawiki 14:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

guru gobind singh

i replied here too. I knew that but was surprised not to find that on wiki. Can you add that passage on the article, that you told me.--nids(♂) 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani Nationalism

Based on your contribs history it would seem that you have an interest in military history. Could you expand the Military achievements section in the Indian Nationalism article with specific victories (like the paratrooper landings in Dhaka during 1971, The Garibpur battle,Basantar,Longewala etc., as well as stuff from Kargil, and the SI War too), seeing as how the Pakistani nationalism editors aim to do the same anyway?Hkelkar 09:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

marxist and marxism

lets keep this discussion here. All i was saying was that it is irrelevant to discuss the views of authors on other pages. They can be discussed on the main pages. But there was no point in saying something like this.nids(♂) 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding, your last post to dab's page, isnt it true that all these authors(including Romila Thapar) are hardline marxists.nids(♂) 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I havent read much about the works of Romila Thapar. But if you have graduated from CBSE, then it wont be hard for you to identify the undue bend towards marxism in our textbooks. Arun Shourie is not the only author to have refuted them. Even VS Naipaul has done so.nids(♂) 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised you are saying this. I just went back to check my class VI history textbook and there was just one sentence in chapter Coming of the Aryans that aryans can refer to liguistics in the whole chapter. Otherwise the whole chapter was full of crap. Similarly, i will have to work through my civics textbook to explicitly find the passages wherein they show their undue bent towards left. Even our constitution says that we are sovereign socialist secular democratic republic.--nids(♂) 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

its true that Naipaul was initially critical of india but pilloried will not be the correct word. And as far as i know, he did a good research on history, not just of india, but the whole third world.--nids(♂) 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that marxist has been used with negative connotations in India. So is the term eminent historians. Marxist, in my view, will refer to those historians who are ultrabent towards the left. If you can go through any chapters devoted to or authored by Nehru, you will find that bend. One of them is Tryst with Destiny in our english books. I guess 11th or 12th. --nids(♂) 14:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you go through this book. At times it is exaggeration, but generally it is a factual description of events. You are right that India was proud for its ridiculous socialist ideologies till 1990. But then it grew up.--nids(♂) 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that they had huge writeups on Marxists, The problem was that they showed them in positive light. We know that Stalin is responsible for genocides, but this is systematically avoided in our textbooks. There are more than a few reliable sources to back up the claim of mughal atrocities. The fact that Qutub Complex is built after demolishing 27 previous temples is not mentioned in any of our history books. (reliable reference = John keay's History of India, often quoted by discovery channel). I personally know many people who didnt knew about this fact. I request you to not just read leftist reviews of his books. Go through it and then tell me if you find something wrong in it. By the way, What would you call those people who say that Uniform Civil code is a Hindutva propoganda. (whenever anybody says so, i just remember the book Protocols of the elders of zion).--nids(♂) 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For pushyamitra, this is a good article. Secondly, what is the correct term for those people who say that Uniform Civil code is a Hindutva propoganda. --nids(♂) 09:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on Christ too. its just a part of anti-semitism that jews killed christ. read further here. i again request you to go through Shourie's book. Yes he is a journalist first, but that doesnt mean that everything else he will do would be just crap. Try finding some of valid criticism of the book. I am again telling you that i am not a fan of fanatic hindutva. I just hate when a good movie like Water(film) is banned in India. But i do understand the frustration of the masses due to the double standards of Pseudo-secularists.--nids(♂) 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the shariat is not restricted to the atrocities on women. You may go through it for details. we are lucky that we do not follow the criminal versions, but even the shariat civil code is inexplainable for a modern society.

Inequality of women in Islam is a separate issue. It is understandable that those who could not go to court (or dont want to) dont get justice. But the worse part is that even those who want justice cannot get it because our laws discriminate against them. Educating masses is a different thing, but what good will they do if our laws continue to discriminate.--nids(♂) 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

if there is any kind of "toe our line and be grateful we let you exist" secularism, than i will be the first one to speak against it. I would strongly object if you say the current secularism is less Psuedo than the Sangh's version. The current secularism is something that forces Salman Rushdie to leave his own country. And if you think that more wives are liability, than why cant you extend this liability to Hindus/Sikhs/christians. Why are you forcing people like Dharmendra to officially convert to Islam. When something is illegal for one person why does it become legal for another person. Just because he follows a "religion of peace". I would like to explain you why is it pseudo-secularism. Our Civil laws were revised during 1955. The then government (rightly) excluded some of the absurd provisions of Hindu Civil code.(i remember one of them, it was that persons belonging to the same gotra cannot marry each other.) even then, Some of the fanatics were against it (and i dont support those fanatics). But those pseudo-secularists, for some reason, didnt touch Muslim Civil law. --nids(♂) 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have got some of the facts wrong. Dharmendra is officially a muslim (i.e. legally). i dont want to go into details of this case. But after 1995 supreme court judgement, if anybody emulates him, i.e. marries first wife under HCC and then converts to Islam to marry a second wife, he could be prosecuted.

Secondly, it was exactly what i am saying. it is understandable if some illitrate people in the Khap Panchayat's still hold up marraiges within Gotra's in Haryana and Western U.P, despite the law permitting. But it is ridiculous if it you make their actions legal. I agree that even if you have Uniform civil code, there will be muslims with four or even more wives. But when a law permits them to do so, it is nothing but anachronistic. nids(♂) 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi pleased to meet you, I see you have prevent vandalism on the Punjab India article before. There has be an anon (203.197.216.5), making constant POV changes to India (Punjab) article, he's already been formally warned for unilaterally deleting detailed political information without calling for discussion, debate or vote. I think if you followed it up by giving another formal warning your self it would help- just use the warning already issued. Thanks--Sikh 1 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And look at the posts on his anon user page personally I was digusted by the comment (100% opposed & disagree to the comment) "I saw Sikhs are a valuable ally against muslims".--Sikh 1 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)