User talk:Gallileo2k/Archive 5

Locked

Abou Achayra's Article beign lockd, can you please revert back tot he real compromise page that included that her works where base donf reethoghht texts, and not "Conaprative rtleigion and mythology' and that inlcudes the Critissm section. This is the verison CrazyEddie also had up a while. As it stands now Acharya's website is linked more often than anythign elkse, and no Critism is included, and her owrk appears ot be abse dom scholarship, when it is not.

I agree that the threa dought to be protected, but can we please protect it in a form that is more honest? Thanks.

Acharya and bias

I am sorry this is an edit war. But can you pelase tell me how my aritlc eis Bias? I tried to maintian compelte neutrality, btu ti seems if you add any Critisism to her owrk in the aricle at all, it becomes "Boas" whereas adding a list of things she claism tobe but is not is soemhow OK.

I showed you before hwo her followers are gangign up on her mailing list to come here. Anythign you add that is nto Sanctioend by Acharya herself will be seen as Biased.

I just think that wikipeida needs ot be fre form this sort of self promotion, thats why its so important ot me. Im not goign to other artilces by Anti-Christaisn and just ,making htme otu to be noncredible. But Acharya lacks credibility, no one htinks shes credible.

Please tell me, in a PM On my tlak page, why my article is bias, and help me out here OK?

Bangladesh cleanup

Ragib, I've just cleaned up Bhutan and am in the process of doing the same for Nepal, and Sri Lanka probably later on. I would like to see Bangladesh featured, (Bhutan is on the threshold), and I was wondering if you could do a bit for the article. The Library of Congress and CIA Factbook has some great country related info which I've used in the Bhutan article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to add some. I've been busy lately with the new semester, but I do have time today and tomorrow to contribute to the article. Thanks. --Ragib 16:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for all the advice. Being new to this, I'm creeping along slowly in figuring out how to do things, so I'm sure the advice will one day be a big help! Thanks again.

Ladywolf13

Thank you

Hello, I thank you for your support to my adminship, and I am sure that we shall be around contributing and building the encyclopedia. Please keep a watch on me and your advice shall always be valuable. --Bhadani 09:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon comment

An anonymous user comment on your page. Unfortunately, it destroyed the contents of your page and lost the formatting. I rolled it back accordingly. If you would like to read it, the edit is always in the page history. ;) Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Just doing my job :). Thanks for the compliment. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, About Acharya.

Hi, I was notified about not vandalising the articles or I woudl be banned foromediting Wikipedia. I can only surmise that Acharya is the one who reported me. After all, I have all night, and yesterday, corrected the Acharya S Article. SHe continually alters it, to reflect her preference for how it shoudl go.

I wrote the origional Article, you see. But this origional article wasnot suitable for Acharya, so she altered it. At firts removign her real name, later replacign it with D. Murdock, and finally leaving it alone.

However, the rest of the article as it now stands lists a cut-and-paste from her own website,and is self promotion. No mention of any critissim for her owrk exists. The fact that the American Society for Greek Studies lacks any record of her beign a member is also not preasent, instead it lists her on Wikipedia as a mmber.

Her lost of tlanets, Mytholoigyst, Archeologist, linguist, Historian, and Scholar, is promenant, dispite the fact that she only has an undergraduate degree from Franklin and MAshal COlalge, for classical studies.

No mention of the factthat the similarities betwen Jesus and the other "Saviour gods" are non-existant in primary soruces.

And, the extenral ;inks section is now void of any articles that woudlrefute her claims.

I asdded a link to Tekton Ministires refutaiton of her. I had, origionally, only towo links. The arutlce now has three or four. Tewo are to the same site, Truth Be Known, the other to another mythisist.

I wasn't attemptign to Vandalise the article on wikiperdia, but save it. It now contians liesabotu Acharya designed ot make peopel think her book is creidble and she is a respectablescholar.

She edited the article origionally to reflect this, and I dodnt know how to object.

And now look at it.

Its blatant self promotion.

She is the vandal, not I, as she will nto allow the truth, but only her spin on this.

I dotn mean to toot my own horn here. I just mean that this is how Acharya always acts. Ive delt with her before,and nay who have delt with her will testify this.

History

Inded, if you look at the Hisotry section, I htink they had a pretty good final edition around june or july.

Acharya On Wikipedia

I did a little searchign today. I foudn Acharya's Mailign list. On it, she discusses the "Vulgar" peopel who try to edit her article, blames "The JEsus freaks" and so fourth. She admits to editign her own article, as do many of her adherants, to rea din a more favourable light that "She can live with".

In short, she is basiclaly statign that, unless the artlce meets her personal approval, it iwll not be posted.

If you read her matierals, you will see the Juvinile nature of her comments and her shameless need to draw attention to herself. I say this not as a baiased person, but it is objective truth. Any and every critissm of her will be edite dout, and only glowng praise allowed. This is hwo she operates.

She wants the Wikipedia article free form queasitosn fo her credentials and ideas. I edited it, at the risk o beignb banned, today, because I cannot stand such bias, least of all form people who want onlyto appear good and rpeutable when they are not.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christ_Conspiracy/messagesearch?query=wikipedia

Please read throughthe Wikipedia posst, many ar emade, tellign how horrible Wikipedia was for allowign someone to challenge her authority on the Jesus Myth idea.

Wikipedia must remain neutral. Thus, Wikip;edia cnanot boldly Declare Jesus was a Myth, or that he existed. Wikipedia can also not boldy declare that Acharya S is right, and cannot elav eout the fact that she lies about, or distirts, her past and acocmplishments.

Read this and see her real mindset. her intention was to make the aritlce as good as posisble. If you chekc the aritlces hisotry, she and others have altered the article to include personal notes about how peopel have no right to challegne aher, demaning credentials form th auhtor ( At that poitn it was several) of th aritlce, and asserting that they had no right to "Judge" her.

I actually called the American School of Greek Studies. Dorothy Murdock is not a member there. She was an undergradutate researhcer who accompanied one of their gdigs. But was never an inducted Member. She does receive the newsletter hwoever, but this is sent to all who have ever worked for the Institution. At any event her "Membership" was over by 1984. Likewise, she was nto a member, btu an undergraduate assitant.

Please do not revert the Wikiaeticle back to sayign hwi she is a Historian, linguist, ect... and opmitign the critisisms of her. It woudl be a grave disservice to Wikipedia and its neutrality if you did.

James

I have been warned, again, about editing the Ahcarya Article.

However, I revert it, and her disiles revert it back.

As it stands now, ti is nohtign but a shameless self promotion.

James sent me a messge, I do not know how to respond. It is below.

' You have to back up your assertions. For example, if you want to claim that she has lied about being a member of the American School of Classical Studies, provide some evidence and documentation, else your claim should be considered baseless.

The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)'

Well,the evidence is in callign the ASOGS, their number is on their website. They will confirm, as they did for me, that Miss Dorothy Murdock is not , nor ever as, a member.

Nevermind, I have answered him myself.

As for the complaint me hade, I was fair and baalmced. They offer no critiissm at all for the claims she makes, even though even Atheists compalin. They will nto allow links to any website that refutes her claims. Try it. Even if not Tekton, try any other wsite. Her disiples will edit them out, leaivng only positive Acharya Links.

To be "Fair and baalnced" to Acharyas followers means ot agree with Acharya and never voice critiissm.

Please, I ask you, is this fair and baaljced? Read the artucle as it now is by James. Is it fair and baalnced to present her thesis as vlaid and reputable? Is itfair and balanced to present her informaiton as if seriosu critissm has not been levelsed agisont it? Is it fair or balanced to not allopw links to others hwo refute her claims in?

Please stop James form Editign the post, please. As he does not concern himself with facts, he is one of the members of Acharya's mailign list.

All he wants is to make sure Acharya looks good, and aid her in her cause.

Aurangzeb's predictions

Our anonymous editor is getting a little monotonous. Who will hold out longer, I wonder? Him or you? Don't worry, Ragib, if you bail, I'll try to keep up the rvs myself...--Nemonoman 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thanks for the message. I check my watchlist as often as I can, and Aurangzeb is in my list. I asked the anon to give references, or else his acts would be considered repeated vandalism. --Ragib 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Permanent Links

What does the "Permanent link" option in the Wikipedia Toolbox do? I haven't been able to find anything in the help pages on it. Thanks. EgbertW 18:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This means a permanent link to this version of the article. For example, articles get changed often, so an article like, say, India, will change from time to time, and the corresponding link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India will refer to the current version. But the permanent link would point to each version. Check the permanent links of two versions of the same article, they will be different. I hope this answers your question. Thanks. --Ragib 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

requesting speedy delete

hello, I am sure that you are fine. If it is appropriate please delete this - Category:Districts of Chattisgarh. I have made a similar category with correct sdpelling which is Chattisgarh. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Ragib 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

requesting speedy delete

hello, I am sure that you are fine. If it is appropriate please delete this - Category:Districts of Chattisgarh. I have made a similar category with correct spelling which is Chattisgarh. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Harprit (or whoever he is) is back

The user with umpteen usernames and anon IPs is back at Urdu language, reverting to his preferred version in which Urdu is the best language in the world and Urdu and Hindi are utterly different languages. I can't revert any more, and he reverts with abandon through his various socks and anonIPs. He doesn't discuss, he just reverts. Could we PLEASE have this user and all his socks and anons blocked for a time? Zora 20:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits. Let me know if the vandal comes back, I'll block the sock accounts. --Ragib 23:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

You became an admin? I was away in August but still ... congratulations! a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did. You are most welcome for your compliments. --Ragib 23:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

HEy I didnt know U became an admin . Mant congras from my side too .Farhansher 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 21:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Can you please vote for the VfD of Babukishan if you know about him. Thanks Tintin 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought he was Bangladeshi, but the article is not specific about his nationality. Tintin 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He is not a Bangladeshi, rather an Indian national, from the state of West Bengal, now based in Mumbai. I don't know about the Indian Baul Music scene, but an article in the Times of India does mention him. The article is definitely a vanity/self-promotion, I'd prefer to have it rewritten, but the person may have some notability. Thanks. --Ragib 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking for expert on Rohingya language

Hello Ragib, I was wondering if and how it is possible to contact you about your expertise on Rohingya language.82.92.148.56 12:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)de Taalstudio, 13 October 2005

Well, I'm not sure. Rohingya language should be very close to the Chittagonian dialect (in fact, a sub dialect of it), but Chittagonian itself is quite incomprehensible to standard Bengali language speakers. I might decipher a sentence or two, but I'm not fluent in Chittagonian. Thanks. --Ragib 13:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please contact rohingyalangauge@yahoo.com Sidqm 01:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Can you help us with Islamrelated articles , starting from Dhul-Qarnayn . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuck the Border

Hi, I hope you don't mind me enquiring for your assistance. I'm trying to collect ways to say "Fuck the Border" in many languages. I'd appreciate your help in finding out the correct Bengali for this phrase. There is a discussion on my Talk page. - FrancisTyers 21:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppets

No, bureaucrats haven't been given the m:checkuser functionality as of now. Only stewards have this ability. Yes, I suspect that they are sockpuppets of each other, the best thing to do it to have Urdu locked by an administrator. PS. I'm not active these days so please excuse the delay in replying. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

reverts

Dear Ragib. I see that you revert the classification on the Urdu language. If you are responding to Zora's request about Harprit, then please desist for it is not me. Not everyone agrees about that classification you revert to and there is only one source opposed to the many that classify it as Indo-Aryan. Please look into it. Than you.--JusticeLaw 21:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

AE's RFA

Plz take a look here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

keep up the good work!

Have just been getting my head around your work. Good man! I have accidentally slipped into your territories. Not that I am qualified of course.  ^freedom Annawright 01:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

hey ragib - DITTO! Aloodum 15:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC) ^{J O I B A N G L A !}

adding to list of bangladeshis

Hello Ragib. I have been helping to tidy up an article on Bangladesh's first Foreign Secretary Abul Fateh. I wonder if you could see what categories and lists this would fit into and make those changes? Thanks. Might be a candidate for featured article somewhere.  ^freedom~~

Hello Ragib and Anna. I have discovered that Wikipedia harbours a secret Bangladeshi origin notable in aladin who is Fateh Shahib's younger son. I have done the necessary but please feel free to go and 'Banglatise' the page.  ^{J O I B A N G L A !}Aloodum 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Hi there! Sorry not to have explained my reason for calling the article POV - have done so now. My concern is not that I disagree with the claims (two of them I actually agree with, and a third I don't know enough about to have an opinion either way), but that they are unsubstantiated. Controversial claims HAVE TO BE linked to a reputable source if they are not to be labelled POV/Original research. I'm sorry I was in a hurry and didn't take the time to explain.

I see you've done A LOT of very valuable work on Bangladesh, and I respect you for that. I hope you don't take my comments personally. David Cannon 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for your message. I'd be delighted if you point out the claims. There IS some degree of dispute about the declaration of independence of Bangladesh, i.e. whether it is by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or Ziaur Rahman. About the involvement of CIA in his assassination, there is a book and a collection of document by Lawrence Lifshultz (spelling may be wrong). Anyway let me know. I didn't take anything personally, rather this enabled me to take a look at your quite rich user page, and get into a pleasant exchange with you. I'm delighted that you have taken an interest into the article, and hopefully the article will get out of its current stagnant stage. Thanks. --Ragib 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome:-) I'm glad you've found some sources - that solves the problem. By the way, I have a question I'm wondering if you could answer. In Bangladesh, does the given name come first, or the family name? Is "Rahman" or "Mujibur" the family name? And by which name is one usually known socially in Bangladesh? David Cannon 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The concept of having a family name is blurred in Bangladesh, especially among Muslims. The Hindus have castes, so their last name is usually their family name. But in case of Muslims, there is no strict rule about having a family name. Some have it, some don't. For example, my last name is not the same as my fathers, and his is not the same as my grandfather's. If a family name is used, it is usually the last name, but not necessarily. For example, in case of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the family name is Sheikh (and also Rahman) (Notice that his daughter Sheikh Hasina has that). Here, "Mujibur" is his given name, "Sheikh" and "Rahman" are components of the family name. In other cases, things may vary. For example, the former president Hossain Mohammad Ershad's family name is probably not Ershad, but he started using it as a family name and his children have "Ershad" as a family name. Anyway, I might have confused you a lot, but the bottom line is, among Muslims, family name is not compulsory and often set arbitrarily, and its placement is also chosen arbitrarily. Thanks. --Ragib 14:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Prevalent Basis on South Asian Pages

I am surprised that you are a PhD fellow and that too in the United States yet express such visible biases.

Case in point I see you continuiously add that "1 to 5 million Muslims Sikhs Hindus lost their lives . . ." in the partition of India. Which is not fact by any standard. A friend of mine working on Master in Modern History is looking into this and no where do we find any refrence that 5 million people lost their lives. The highest is by Times Magazine from that year that states that as many as a million and half people lost their lives - an over whelming majority being Muslims.

Secondly, on the Bangladesh page you refuse to write that those Bangalis who were not in favor of Mukhti Bhini rebels / freedom fighters were masacared by them. Are you afraid to say that not all people of Bangladesh wanted to be seperate rather they just wanted their right - which to me sounds more patriotic and higher of them.

Similarly, you do not want to say that Bangladesh and Pakistan have burried their past behind them are major trading Partners - if you doubt that - I would say please visit the export promotion bureau's of Pakistan website so you can see how much trade is between Pakistan and Bangladesh - you will also see that military trade is right smack at the top.

Stop being afraid and start being fair. What has happened - good or bad should be stated as it is. Just as I am not afraid to admit that the greatest unjustice ever done by Pakistan was against it own people in Bangladesh and had the military and bureaucracy adopted the 14 point plan regardless of weather Bangladesh would have formed or not Pakistan (collectively) would have been a much stronger country.

My utmost request to you is make this resource a viable resource and I am sure that specially given your academic background you will rise to the occasion and agree with me.

Respectfully Your's Exsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsol (talk • contribs)

Excuse me!!!! Where on earth did I "continuously added 1 to 5 million " etc etc????? Did you confuse me with someone??? Pleaes go ahead and check page edit histories etc. I just checked my contributions list (Special:Contributions/Ragib, where I fail to find any such edit. Would you care to enlighten me why you fantasize me doing such edits?

In the Bangladesh page, your point is ridiculous ... 0.005% of Bengalis perhaps opposed liberation. I am yet to meet any Bangladeshi who would welcome a West Pakistani soldier to plunder his home, kill/rape his children etc.

You also claim I'm biased because I don't want to say Pakistan and BD are trading partners... you wanted a reason, how about "relevancy" of the fact? What does the fact have to do? BD and USA are major trading partners.... BD and India are even larger trading partners... BD and Nepal are good trading partners, and so on. Pakistan is not our only trading partner, so to go on highlighting that fact would be irrelevant and certainly biased in its own right.

Thanks. --Ragib 16:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My grivience with you is not about Bangladesh page and trading partner. I used that as an '''example only''' and just as your raw emotions are expressed about the very unfortunate and brutal events that transpired in the independece of Bangladesh, you must consider the same for 14th august. To force to say that 5 million sikhs and hindus died is quite unfair. Please stop reverting the Pakistan page on the basis of this comment alone.

now completely unrelated just as a conversation. Last year for the first time Pakistan officially celebrated the Independece Day of Bangladesh - I have supplements from all major newspapers english and urdu which high-lighted the events. Since you - yourself are from Bangladesh I am sure you would understand how major this is (for any third world country). Not that it makes things all right or brings people back or reverses the hurt. But for a generation of Pakistanis who were too young at that time or were born afterwards this was the first time an oppertunity to realize that it was not Bangladeshis who were at fault but the Pakistanis. I think the letter by your prime minister and Ambassador was truly inspiring. In those supplements there was a detailed article by a Professor from Chitagong University which in detail talks about how (between 1965 - 1970) there was only a very very small number of people who wanted seperation - but as the human rights violations mounted up they number started shifting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsol (talk • contribs)

Again, I have not reverted the Pakistan page in the my 100 last edits, except for the time I removed some link spam. Why are you continuously blaming me without any reason? Please "Show" me where I reverted any facts on Pakistan, I don't see any, and as such I am sorry to say that your claim is a lie. I keep the Bangladesh page clean and free of unnecessary clutter, your additions were irrelevant in the context of the history section of Bangladesh. I haven't even touched the section in Pakistan on the number of people dying during the Partition. I think you are confusing me with Idleguy or others. Please take your complaints to them.

You might try looking into the edit history of Pakistan during May-August of this year. You may further notice there how I fought tooth and nail with some ultra-nationalist pro-Indian vandals to maintain the neutrality of the article. If I had so much hatred, would I have done so? So, shift your focus and contact the appropriate persons regarding edits to Partition-death estimates. I haven't even edited those sections. Thanks. --Ragib 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Junagard and Hyderabad disputed territories

Here is refrence in Indian newspaper about the claim. I am looking for more non-pakistan refrences so that you can see for your self that these two former princely States are actually disputed.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/02hafiz.htm

See para 3 towards end where the Indian newspaper gives credit to the indian army for successfully intergrating (attacking and taking over) Junagarh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir

"Therefore the Indian defence forces can justifiably claim that they have given the country reasonably effective security at very affordable costs. This is without taking into account the role they played in the integration of the Indian Union - in Junagarh, Kashmir and Hyderabad."

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1416/14160260.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:dtEeqax_QxYJ:www.pakistan.gov.pk/foreignaffairs-ministry/policies/kash-issue/kash-issue.jsp+Disputed+Territories,+Pakistan,+India,+%2BHyderabad&hl=en

More on Junagarh . . .

[There were, however, some states over which problems arose, primarily because of India's insatiable desire to grab territory. For example, the Muslim ruler of Junagarh, a state with a Hindu majority population, announced his decision to join Pakistan.

India responded by aiding and abetting the establishment of a so-called "Provisional Government" of Junagarh on Indian territory, which attacked Junagarh with Indian connivance and support. Subsequently Indian forces also invaded Junagarh, despite protests from Pakistan, in order to "restore law and order".]

http://www.southasianmedia.net/major_issues/Kashmir/Pakistan_kashmir.cfm?did=57

What does this have to do with me? Thanks for the information, but I'm not really editing those sections of the Pakistan->History section. If you have found references, please feel free to go ahead and add them in the appropriate place. Thanks. --Ragib 19:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

EID MUBARIK

اسلام علیکم۔ عید مبارک i hope you understand this Eid Mubarik

الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Man I totally forgot this, but have a very happy Eid. Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Problematic anon

Yes, that particular anon has been continuing his activities across all wars of India including Sino-Indian War and adding the same see alsos as other editors continue to revert elsewhere too. It would be better if the range block was imposed atleast on a temp basis to prevent this nagging vandal. Tx Idleguy 17:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Indian AfDs

Can you please keep a tab on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. Most of it is relevant to the whole subcontinent. Tintin 01:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your great contributions to articles related to South Asia, particularly Bangladesh, I hereby present you The Barnstar of National Merit. deeptrivia 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Welcome! You deserve it! deeptrivia 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Two nation theory propaganda on wikipedia articles

Just wanted to bring to your notice such propaganda that is not difficult to find on wikipedia articles. An example from the Sindh article:

"The Aryans called most of what is today Pakistan, Kashmir and eastern Afghanistan, Sapta Sindhu, the land of seven rivers. In the Rigveda it is referred to as Sapta Sindhva, while India is named Bharat Varsa (the land of the sons of Bharat, a legendary Emperor). Thus, for the Aryans there were two countries in South Asia: Sapta Sindhva (Sindh) and Bharat Varsa (Hind). However, when India began to be called Hind by Persians and Arabs, and Ind by Greeks and Romans, the local people continued to call their land, Sind. This distinction continued for centuries."

I have made the following comment on the talk page:

Bharat Varsha is a name from the later Vedic age, separated by about 1000 years from the time of the Rigveda. The Bharat dynasty did not exist at the time the Rigveda was written. Consequently, the name Bharat Varsha is never mentioned in any of the vedas. It is universally accepted that the word Hind comes from Sind. In fact from Sanskrit to Avestan 'S' always changes to 'H'. For example, Soma becomes Haoma, Asura becomes Ahura, etc.

Also, the name Sapta Sindhu is never mentioned in any later Vedic texts like the Upanishads or the itihaasas.

It is unfortunate that such theories are posted on wikipedia articles. I did not make any changes because I don't want to get involved in any confrontations. deeptrivia 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct about the absurdity of the 2 nation theory theory. Some people are always out there re-inventing history. I'm not conversant with the vedas, otherwise I'd have definitely gone ahead and change that. I'll keep an eye on the page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation of the word Bangla in Bangladesh or Bangla

Almost all foreign / non-native speakers pronounces the word "Bangla" like the word "Bang". Meaning of "Bang" is not good. But the main point is that ... "Bangla" is getting pronounced wrongly. That is the reason i've added the correct pronunciation words, which should be pronounced by all and correctly. Tarikash 05:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The better way (see India) is to use International Phonetic Alphabet. Thanks. --Ragib 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the IPA notation to the articles concerned. (IPA: ['bɑːŋlɑːðɛʃ]). This is the standard way to give pronunciation of non-English names. Thanks. --Ragib 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying ... foreigners / non-native speakers are pronouncing the word "Bangla" like in "Bangladesh" and language "Bangla" correctly ? Then you're absolutely wrong. It is not easy for them to grasp quickly. And i think you're misunderstanding why i've added that paragraph. i want the pronunciation to be clear to all foreign / non-native speakers, by giving reference to the correct words. If you want, you are very welcome to include a better or more correct pronunciation reference words. So others know the correct pronunciation. 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is the IPA (International phonetic alphabet) for doing exactly the same thing as you are looking for. Please look into that, instead of adding non-standard text into articles. Thanks. --Ragib 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please add a paragraph where, pronunciation of "Bangladesh" or "Bangla" is done correctly by using regular, commonly used words, which can be understood by most regular foreigners / non-native speakers, very easily. -05:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the IPA notation is there. Don't make the article bloated. Top level country pages are summaries, you don't need to add redundant text. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And i'm requesting/warning to you please do not dis-include my changes. If there is a better or similar paragraph with same content, then my paragraph is not needed, otherwise simply, please do not dis-iclude my paragraph. If you dis-include, your action will be considered vandalism by wikipedia. 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Tarikash 07:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuing after our previous conversation (Tarikash (Talk), Ragib (Talk), Bangladesh (Talk), Bengali Lanuage (Talk)) ... IPA characters are not visible in IE(Internet Explorer) unless you have modified it to use unicode fonts, no regular user knows how to do that. So more than 70% people on internet cannot see many characters used in the IPA/unicode, instead they see a ractangular blank box in that character place, that is why we need to explain things in another alternative way. To make a clear conception of correct pronunciation, using example of different words, as well as IPA, is completely fine, and in my opinion, even better. Using only IPA, doesn't clarify the pronunciation. When all browser software will be totally unicode compatible and all users starts to use that type of browser then IPA alone may be enough.
- Tarikash 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Many doesn't know how to interpret IPA into pronounceable words, that is why dictionary, and we still use reference to commonly known easy words, to make the word pronunciation easy and correct.
- Tarikash 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

I've been working on the Malwa article, and would like to request you to review the article. Seems like we can easily make it into a featured article. Any suggestions and/or contributions will be highly appreciated. deeptrivia 06:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Urdu & Hindustani

Hi Ragib,

I notice you've been restoring JusticeLaw's blanking of the classification of Urdu, and was wondering if you could put Hindustani on your watchlist as well, since he's reverting that article too. The differences are more substantial there, but revolve around the same denial of Urdu being Hindustani. If you don't agree with what I've done with the article, by all means add your expertise - I did the best I could, but really don't know what I'm doing - and there is additional info on the talk pages which hasn't been incorporated into the article.

Thanks, kwami 19:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rashad Khalifa

Some problems:

1) Don't call POV vandalism

2) Don't use a rollback button on POV

3) Don't protect a page you've been editing, unless it's from vandalism

4) Don't use vprotect when you were protecting from an edit war, which you were in

5) You have breeched WP:3RR, and I should be blocking you. However, I think it's more likely that you thought it was vandalism, when really it was just POV. I'll be changing to the non-vprotected template, and hopefully in the future you won't call POV vandalism.

Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. When a valid references are removed without justification, I termed it vandalism. But you're right, that may not fall into vandalism.

2. Hypothetically, what do you do when a page on your watch (but one you might not have edited) is blanked or information removed from it? If you look into the history of Rashad Khalifa, you will not find me editing or contributing anything to it. In fact, my sole contribution to the page has been to guard against blanking vandalism. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashad_Khalifa&action=history this log of page history].

3. As I said, I have NOT been editing the page, my last edit to the article was on September 26, and it was revert of blanking. My other edit was on September 18, that too was a revert of blanking. Other admins, for example, Everyking has reverted such blanking too, see this diff. I haven't edited any portion of the article EVER. Please take a look at the page history to verify that. I also don't have a stake at the tussle between the submitters/anti-submitters and whatever over this article.

4. Looking into page history, I see that I have made 4 reverts. I made the reverts in good faith, to protect against vandalism, and my assumption was that this was exempt from 3RR. Since you indicate my assumption may be incorrect, I retract my assertion of vandalism, but I would suggest you use your own judgement in looking into the page history. The blanking patter from IP 61.247.*.* has been consistent and has been reverted by other admins before. However, since you raised this question, I am refraining from any further action on the article, and leave the task to other admins.

In the end, I will assert firmly that I have no participation in the article's edit wars, and have acted in good faith to protect against consistent vandalism. Check the edit history of the article to verify my standpoint that I have NOT edited the article rather than vandalism-reverts. The religion-based allegation put into the WP:RfP by the anon/H.Yahya is also quite insulting, my contributions indicate my edit pattern and my neutrality. Thanks for looking into the article. Please feel free to unprotect it at your discretion. Thanks. --Ragib 05:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I knew you were in good faith, but perhaps a misunderstanding. I know you were in good faith, and of course trying to do what's best. There is undoubtedly POV pushing, so of course I left it protected. But I changed it to Protected, rather than Vprotected. Thanks for retracting the assertion, really, vandalism is just blanking, penis picturing, literal attacks (GEORGE BUSH IS SO FUCKING STUPID) and a few other obvious ones. POV is Bad, but its too subjective for us to consider it vandalism. Thanks :) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

transcription

no problem; i actually didn't notice it was you who entered the ipa version, but i'm glad you did. it is much more professional and scholarly, and concise for that matter. i hope to add more to the bengali page soon, but i am currently working on my m.a. thesis (incidentally on bengali!) and have been somewhat distracted. hopefully next month! --SameerKhan 06:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi there - I've unblocked this IP; its a shared IP and although the vandalism from this IP was unacceptable, I've decided to AGF and see what happens. Please feel free to reinstate the block if a single edit of vandalism comes from this IP. I'll look at the IP for the next little bit just to make sure everything is okay. --HappyCamper 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tx for the help

Your help in containing those vandals is very much appreciated by me. Thanks. Idleguy 05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done in 2005

Thank you for sustaining your fantastic work!  ^freedom Annawright 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahilyabai Holkar

Hi, I see that at some point in the past, you moved Ahilyabai Holkar to Rajmata Ahilya Devi Holkar. In fact, the former name is the one by which she is best known. Also, the lady was never a "Rajmata"; she was herself the ruler until she died, so the title of the second page is incorrect. Can you please revert to the old page? Thank you. ImpuMozhi 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I can't remember the occasion I moved the Ahilyabai Holkar to Rajmata Ahilya Devi Holkar, could you refresh my mind by pointing out the link? According to this, Deeptrivia (talk · contribs) added the redirect. My only contribution to this article seem to be the addition of content to the blank page, taking stuff from Holkar. Thanks. --Ragib 01:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the history of the page, and as your name was first on the list, I imagined you had "created" the page by moving it. In any case, could you help do the needful? When I tru to revert the page to "Ahinyabai Holkar", I get the message that that cannot be done as "a page by that name already exists" Thanx, ImpuMozhi 01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Ragib 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx very much. Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Babur article war

Hi: Can you take a look at the rv war in progress in Babur and suggest any potential courses of action?? The politics of editing are still sort of a mystery to me...--Nemonoman 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your reference for the following paragraph.

Concerning the quoted paragraph below, can you please cite your reference. I have reason to believe it is not wholly true. If you are the author of the paragaph, can you name a few of the "many extra-judicial killings of mainly left-wing extremists"? The paragraph basically says he became a dictator ("president for life"), then ends by saying his death ended any hopes of democracy? Does that make any sense to you? If this paragpraph's purpose is to point out how he usurped power for himself, it should not mention that sentence in the end based on simple logic and writing principles.

I also did not find any mention of the fact that Sheikh Mujib pardoned the Pakistani soldiers that surrendered and did not make them stand trial for their genocide. As an act to settle the war peacefully he allowed their unconditional return to Pakistan.

More references would be welcome. Thanks for active moderation of the page.

REF:

---

PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION -------------

-begin- "In 1975, Sheikh Mujib attempted to regain control by declaring a state of emergency. The legislature rubber-stamped an amendment to the constitution completely diverting it from the democratic principles of the country. Mujib declared himself president for life and outlawed all political parties except the Awami League. A paramilitary force, loyalist to the party, was raised that was ruthlessly used to subdue any opposition. This force was responsible for many extra-judicial killings of mainly left-wing extremists. His assassination later in the year was seen by many as ending promise of a secular, modern, democratic nation." -end-

First of all, I am not the original author of the paragraph you mention. Secondly, if you are talking about the sentences In 1975, Sheikh Mujib attempted to regain control by declaring a state of emergency. The legislature rubber-stamped an amendment to the constitution completely diverting it from the democratic principles of the country. Mujib declared himself president for life and outlawed all political parties except the Awami League. , the best reference is the Fourth amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution [1]. The last sentence in the paragraph you quote looks odd, this doesn't make sense. As for the extra-judicial killings of left wing politicians, try reading Anthony Mascarenhaas' "Bangladesh: a legacy of blood", which details Mujib Assassination, where you can find the references on the killing of Siraj Shikdar by Mujib's paramilitary. Thanks. --Ragib 04:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Rajib,

Thanks for your feedback. You cannot possibly take Anthony Mascarenhas' book seriously? He basically says Zia and Mujib were bloodthirsty dictators who deserved what they got - slaughtering the whole Mujib family line that was living in bangladesh and assassinating Zia. That author has no qualifications to write on the subject (try doing some research on his background), but anyways... I do not want to debate about history, in such an article, there will obviously be many bias (POV) in the writing, but lets please work to depict people fairly. Don't you think calling the Father of the nation a ruthless bloodthirsty dictator is a bit too harsh ? Also since you won't allow me to modify any part of the article, could you please add the part where he pardoned the pakistani soldiers and let them go home. Can you also kindly add the fact that many (majority) of bangladeshis consider him the father of the nation, other parts of wikipedia acknowledge this fact. Maybe the link to the constitution contained factual information but just thought I'd let you know that that website [2] has many dead links and no acknowledgements or reliability. Thankyou again for you efforts. -- BD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.249.217 (talk • contribs)

Ok, let me go through your points one by one --

Anthony Mascarenhaas' book

Well I've really read his book in detail. I don't see any reason why Mascaranhas, one of the only few journalists who exposed the Pakistan Army's brutality in 1971, and was familiar with both Mujib and Zia, would be biased. Please read the book, I don't see any bias there, rather than the depiction of facts. It is true that Siraj Shikdar was killed by Mujib's Rakkhi Bahini. It is true that Zia had more than 20 coups launched against him in 4 years. I don't recall Mascarenhaas saying Mujib and Zia got what they deserved. Rather the book is quite non-partial. There are plenty of other books supporting Mascarenhas' book, and I have had talked with people who lived through both the rules of Mujib and Zia, so I don't have any reason to call Mascarenhas partial.

Calling Mujib bloodthirsty dictator

You are right, if this language is present in the article, that's not really encyclopedic. I'll check the article to remove any such language.

Just a follow-up, where *exactly* did you find the "bloodthirsty dictator" sentence? I don't see it anywhere. --Ragib 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't let you write

Come on!! you are free to write, but I also take care that none of these articles, let it be Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or Ziaur Rahman becomes full of one-sided language. I was heavily involved in promoting Sheikh Hasina's page for an improvement drive last august. I also edited and enhanced the Mujib and Zia articles, and have protected them from Pakistani vandals. (See history for all these articles). I personally don't have any leaning towards any of these respected leaders of BD, and my goal is to maintain and promote these articles. So, you are free to edit these, as long as blanking, biased text are not among the edits.

Banglapedia's reliability

Are you serious? Banglapedia has botha print version and an electronic version, and was the result of a 5year project funded by the Government of Bangladesh and the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Please read the writers and editors, they are the leading intellectuals and educators of Bangladesh. I can't say that the search.com.bd site shouldn't have dead links, you might try the official site for Banglapedia here.

Thanks. --Ragib 06:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Thanks for the greetings and wish you the same too. Regarding the external links thing: well, that depends. How many alumni sites are there? Is this link more popular than the rest? If there are may such sites, then only the largest few should be listed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The top five alumni associations should all be mentioned to avoid favouritism. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy 2006

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)