User talk:Hkelkar/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

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

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

Indian Buddhist Movement

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

Which Varna Do you belong?

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

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

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

Copied from my talkpage re Jawaharlal Nehru

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

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

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

Test Section

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

Poverty in India

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

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

Indian caste system

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

Hinduism as an Ethnicity

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

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

Godhra Train Burning

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

Upanishad

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

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

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

Ikonoblast

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

The man is completely incorrigible. Anyway, I have been rewriting the entire votebank article - I don't think he can act like he owns it anymore.Gamesmaster G-9 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support a WP:RFAR. I wasn't very clear on the steps that can be taken, which is why I hadn't done it myself. I'm sure that other users will back us up here.Gamesmaster G-9 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and the Sikh panth

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

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

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

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

Poverty in Pakistan

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

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

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

Poverty in Pakistan table

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

Poverty in India

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

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

mistake with template

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

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

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

User:Kathanar

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

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

Well

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

Indian Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

sub category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of Vandalism

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

Tipu Sultan

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

History of Pakistan

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

Tippu and Rockets

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

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

Civility

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

Is this not NPOV

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

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

Mysorebhai11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Hind"

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

Mr Hkelkar

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

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

Hkelkar come for open debate. Give your contact details we will arrange meetings in USA, Europe Or India wherever you are. Our Buddhist organization members are everywhere. So you can debate and discuss the Indian Buddhist Movement. Dhammafriend 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Defamation of Koenraad Elst

A couple of users are using Wiki to defame Koenraad Elst to promote eurocentric fantasism [4].Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sending the blocking request

I hope, that has made you happy and I am happy that I could bring that happiness to you. Mr. HKelkar, Wikipedia uses, TimeStamp, IP addresses and blogging information to locate/indentify person. If you could have seen my timestamps and IP addresses, you could have saved the Administrators time.

Offcource we are one but only by mind. Physically there are hundreds and hundreds are still waiting. May the Truth prevail. Long live Indian Buddhist Movement.--Bodhidhamma 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read your friend User:Bakasuprman's talk page

I am sending you this link before he sends it to you. :-) I know you are buddies.

Please read his talk page and answer if you could. The way you answer it , will decide whether you are an honest/credible person or just an hypocrite. (If this word is not according to wikipedia standards, my apologies.)

about your talk

Sorry if I got angry. It's just very difficult for me to tolerate obnoxious prosetylizing and virulent racism that comes from missionaries of any religion, and wikipedia is no place for such things anyways.Hkelkar 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My answer: People get angry when they do not have answers to their problem. As simple as it is. Get away for a while. Try to put urself in that person's shoe, and think what could be hurting him and why. You will find an answer and will help you calm. This solution doesnt work for hypocrites though. Respect and love, this what buddhism is based upon.

Why do you think it is vandalism?

Please answer the questions insted of pointing technical errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bodhidhamma (talk • contribs) .

I am here to provide positive information

Mr. HKelkar,

I am here to provide positive information/view. I have already apologised to the administrator for my technical errors. I am learning it. I expect others to provide references/documentation before you claim anything. If there are supporting authorative documents who am I to challange that? But I do not want cooked stories to be published just like a street gossip. Wikipidia has to be an authorative source for any kind of information on any subject. And hence we should work together to bring the truth (what we collectvely believe and agree upon) in front of the word.

With Metta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bodhidhamma (talk • contribs) .

Thank you

Please look up the puranas and make sure those are valid documents.(From an accnowledged library and other scholars have varified and used it as a reference) Once I get them I will send them to Buddhist Monks associations in various countries to varify the claim. As I am not an authority in Puranas/Vedas. I just read things about other religions from www.sacredscripts.com.

Make sure until that period the NPOV status is maintained. If you could not find valid documents I will assume that we agree to delete the section.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. --Bodhidhamma 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your WP:NOR

The "reasoning" provided above is a violation of WP:NOR. Find sources that attest to the reasoning.Hkelkar 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I havent provided any reasoning? They are all questions my friend? And these are very logical questions. You dont need special documentation for that. I hope you know basic geometry. If first triangle is similar to second triangle and second triangle is similar to third triangle then first trianle has to be similar to third on. Simple logic.

If Buddha = Vishnu's avatar And Adi Shankaracharya = Follower of Vishnu Then Adi Shakara should be Follower/believer of Buddha.

If any condition if false, the whole logic is false. --Bodhidhamma 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Califorinan Hindu textbooks controversy

Hey. Regardless of what you think of FOSA, the sentence I edited out had to do with what FOSA thought about the edits. Surely FOSA themselves are a reliable source of their own beliefs! --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can. The section has to do with examples of the proposed changes to the textbook, not what the HEF thinks about FOSA's reaction to the proposed edits. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the article doesn't need to cover every claim and counterclaim made by all the different sides in this mess. --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, could you stop reverting the article there? You misread the citations; read the talk page. If you want to discuss specific portions of the edits, then we can do that. On the talk page. --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:RS—there's nothing about tax-exempt organizations or organizations with ties to terrorists being more reliable. Both the HEF and FOSA are lobby groups, and thus only reliable sources insofar as they're primary sources. That means the HEF isn't a reliable source as to what FOSA thinks (and vice versa). And neither of them can be cited as an unbiased third-party, the way the Christian Science Monitor can be (for example). --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did, RS states that non-partisan sources can be quoted qithout qualification and partisan sources must be handled with caution. HAF is recognized as a non-partisan org by US government and FOSA is not.Hkelkar 03:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think you understand what "tax-exempt" means. It just means the organization is a nonprofit—the National Rifle Association and MoveOn.org are tax-exempt as well. The IRS doesn't certify anyone as non-partisan—"non-partisan" means they're not a party to the conflict, which the HEF obviously is. See the paragraph under "Company and organization websites." --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for working with me here. I really don't want this to get contentious, and I understand that you distrust several of the organizations and people involved in this. I'm a Hindu myself, so I want to make it clear I'm not approaching this from any sort of virulent anti-Hindu perspective. --Xiaopo [[User talk:Xiaopo|ℑ 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kathanar

Just a note, I think you are being a little heavy handed in your dealings with User:Kathanar. Jumping straight down his/her throat for making a few edits is going overboard. Please assume good faith in your dealings and if they is a dispute please try and discuss it on the talk pages instead of engaging in edit wars and plastering large scale warnings on the users talk page. Calm down, step back and treat these issues like the adults you are. Ben W Bell talk 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are just being nonsense.

You do not have basic decency of accepting/respecting POV.

Why dont you accept that, that section is disputed and has factual errors.

I am reporting this to the administrator. --Bodhidhamma 22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are just being uncivil.

I do not have any words for your behaviour and I do not think I have made personal attat. I Am a buddist follwer and my religion does not allow me to attack on any one. Why you are changing the disputed text. I moved NPOV to Dispute according to the NPOV described on talk page.--Bodhidhamma 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that you have been the most hatemongering distorter of facts on wikipedia to date. You have persistently deleted sourced info, vandalised articles, harrassed users across the board, and made so many tendentious edits that I can;t even count them anymore. Some Buddhist you are! You have even angered another BUDDHIST user thegreyanomaly, who has complained against you. This clearly demonstrates your trollish attitude if those of your flock dislike you. I am tired of your wikitroll behaviour and will simple report you if you vandalize articles further. You will receive no further warnings from me.Arguing with you is a waste of my time so I won't.Hkelkar 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar you have clamed that you a 'Jewish' on my talk page. If you expect Buddhist writer to give references and proofs for each and every line then I think you should also give proofs for your comments anywhere. But please don't give vague references of some old texts which nobody knows who has written them in which century? Dhammafriend 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Accpet that you cannot argue with me because you do not have any answer. Your vague reference "Purana" does not mean anything. Learn to write religios documents, if you dont stop doing it. Leave that job to others. you are just a Hindu right wing propaganda machine and run from giving valid proofs. --Bodhidhamma 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== Your recent comment on my talk

This is again I consider personal attack and will report the administrator accordingly. --Bodhidhamma 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last msg to Bodhidhamma

Though I agree with your anger against the contentious editor, calling someone a "fake" doesnt help your rapport on wiki. You have never been blocked. Please try and keep it that way. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Khalistan

Thanks for rectifying the POV tag on the Khalistan page. However, now there is a lot of blank space appearing between the article heading and the Tag. Could you check that please. 203.197.216.5 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Movement and Reverting the Article

Why are you reverting Indian Buddhist Movement the article again and again without discussion? Dhammafriend 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Movement and Discussions

What are the 'racist' comments you found?? Can you please list them so that I will clear all points. You are blaming me with so many offenses that even I am surprised. So I would like to know all your concerns. Dhammafriend 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stoip the insults or I will report you

Don't bring my Jewishness into this. regardless of my faith I have every right to question trollish edits and various form of POV pushing in any article. Shalom Aleikhem.Hkelkar 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what kind of insul I am doing with you? I have asked the list of offenses that you are claiming again and again ?? You said that I wrote 'racist' remarks agaisnt you. Can you explain what kind of remarks? Dhammafriend 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bring my Jewishness into this. regardless of my faith I have every right to question trollish edits and various form of POV pushing in any article. Shalom Aleikhem.Hkelkar 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing my faith in order to judge my edits is a violation of WP:NPA. Comment on content, not contributor. When you mistakenly tought I was a Hindu, you engaged in anti-Hindu racist attacks that would put most neo-Nazis to shame.Please stop this. Plus, stop making ridiculous claims that you can't source.Hkelkar 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Until you treat people (Hindus or anyone) with respect and courtesy my "charges" still stand. If you have to make anti-Hindu accusations then at least have the decency to source them.Hkelkar 16

45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I never though that you are a 'Hindu'. This is an absolute false explanation. Because deciding somebody as Hindu is certainly a very very difficult task. We can sometimes find Brahmin Varnas OR Shudra Varnas people as per the Veda and other religious law books known as DharmaShastras. So I don't know who is Hindu ! I never call anybody as Hindu and I don't have any right to brand anybody as Hindu! You again insulting me as anti-HinduDhammafriend 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My insult as 'Racist'

I need explanation for Mr.Hkelkar remarks that I am racist. This is insulting and personnal attack against me. This is a very big charge against me Dhammafriend 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User Hkelkar has insulted me as 'racist'. I demand explanation from him. Till he is not giving explanation I request all administrators and so-called administrators to block him. Dhammafriend 16:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing people's caste as Brahmin or Shudra is another violation of WP:NPA, again, it is a comment on contributor, not content so is blatantly racist.Hkelkar 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't mix Caste with Varnas. I am not caracterizing anybody's caste. These two are separate issues. Brahmin OR Shudra is a social and religious classification or identification as well as please read Varnas on same Wikipedia. This you can find in Veda and DharmaShastras it means you want to say all those people who believe in these scripture or follow these scrtiptures are 'racist'?? This is not too much Mr. Hkelkar. Please give some acceptable and logical solution before calling somebody as 'rasict' and read Racism. Racism and Casteism are two social separate issues of discriminataion. Don't mix them. We are an anti-caste people and I always proud that we belive in Equality, Liberty and Fraternity. I am a Buddhist working for Indian Buddhit Movement and we are against Castiesm and against Racism! For your kind information I am an Indian as well as my colur black. That is why I asked you to come and meet anywhere to clear any misconceptions. Don't you think calling a non-White person like me as 'Racist' is too much 'Hypocricy'. Dhammafriend 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so non-whites can't be racists? Ridiculous (and, in on itself, a racist claim)! Look at Louis Farrakhan (a black racist) as an example. There are many Arabs who are racist, as well as many Indians (the more kooky elements of the Hindu Nationalist movements). There are also racists among my fellow Jews. Racists come in all shapes, sized and colours.Plus, the term "Racism" (in the modern world) is generally used to mean any ethnocentric attack. regardless of whether the ethnic division is racial, religious or social. Whether you attack users by Caste, Jati, Biradari or Varna, they are all patently racist attacks.Hkelkar 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You want to say that Veda, DharmaShastra all are racist religious books? All who follow and believe these religious books are racist? But at least I don't follow Veda DharmaShastra or any other 'racist' sects. So don't call me racist! I think at least now your issue has been sorted out. Dhammafriend 17:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kathanar

Thanks. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean why are you puting my name up as the title? Is this a acknowledgment that you are working with [Hkelkar]?--Kathanar 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Violation

User:Hkelkar IF you continue to attack and harass me and make threats, you will be one to be blocked from wikipedia, I'll go ahead and work on that. I consider this a personal attack and defamatory, there will be consequences--Kathanar 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes his name will be mud with name-callers and mud-slingers.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP IT!!!!!!

Right you two, I am posting this message to both your pages. STOP IT!!! You are both acting like kids in a playground. Now I don't know anything about the topics under discussion but both your actions are becoming disruptive to Wikipedia. Now I've been very busy with other things these last couple of days so I haven't been able to intervene as was probably needed. I would like to point out a couple of things to you.

1. Go and read WP:Vandalism. People making edits you don't necessarily agree with isn't the same as vandalism, it is a content dispute. Warning each other for vandalism for doing and undoing each others edits is disruptive and just plain wrong.
2. There are talk pages attached to every single article in Wikipedia. There are talk pages for specific areas and projects within Wikipedia. Content disputes and differing ideas should be discussed on these pages. I note there has been a whole lot of reverting, vandalism warnings back and forth and such like, but very little in the way of attempting to actually talk to each other. Use the pages. Don't make more than one revert without discussing your differences, one person't vandalism is another's good faith edit.
3. Stop being so diruptive. My talk page, and every other talk page, are not areas for you to attack one another and try to outdo each other. Reading through my talk page it reads like two kids coming to mother and saying "he did this" and "he did that". Please stop it.
4. POV. Please read the Wikipedia article WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia. Your personal views and opinions should be irrelevant to the maintenance of a neutral encyclopaedia. If you feel really strongly one way or another on a particular subject, then you probably really shouldn't be editing it as your bias will come through.

So in closing, what you two have is a content dispute. Who is right, I really don't know as I'm not au fait with the topics. What I do know is it isn't deliberate vandalism so stop with the vandalism warnings. If either of you reverts and puts a warning of vandalism on the other users page for what would seem to others to be a good faith edit, I'll consider a temporary block on that person for disruptive behaviour. Also skirting close to the WP:3RR may also result in a temporary block for undermining the spirit of the policy if not the letter of it. So please, discuss your differences, use the talk pages constructively and talk calmly. If you see an edit that gets your blood up and you have to strike out against it, turn your computer off for a few hours, go away and do something relaxing and calm down. You know what they say "edit in haste, repent in error", which reminds me of the time an email annoyed me at work and I accidentally hit Reply To All and didn't realise the CEO and company Board were included in the reply list, but that's another story. Thank you. Ben W Bell talk 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Absurd accusation of sockpuppetry

I have responded in the RFCU.Hope I helped.Shiva's Trident 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan

"I'd appreciate some patience with you and other meatpuppets of the Muslim Guild." With messages like that, you expect patience? Funny. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly be objective but I don't have the patience to deal with sockpuppets who continue to deny that they are a sockpuppet. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are simply avoiding being caught by checkuser because you always use the Shiva's Trident (Subhash bose) account from your home computer, and you use this Hkelkar account only on campus. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have always suspected this account of being a sockpuppet, and until I see some compelling evidence that it is not, I will continue to assume that you are Subhash bose. There's no "hostility." BhaiSaab ^talk 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously accusations of Islamist cabals come from Hindutva people; not a lot of merit there. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of merit actually. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And the checkuser came back as "likely." It looks like you accidentally logged in as Subhash bose from the university computers or accidentally logged in as Hkelkar on your home computer. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re

Thank you. And you may consider WP:PP. --Midwh 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese Collaboration on Navayana page

I have no knowledge relating to that subject. Sorry Thegreyanomaly 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Noakhali anti-Hindu pogrom

This pertains to other anti-Hindu pogroms in NWFP and Punjab as a consequence of Direct Action Day. I managed to put it in based on whatever little refs I could find online. Could you suggest some books I could see for additional data (exact death-toll, specific incidents etc.)?Hkelkar 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The books on partition of India provide the information and graphic narration .There are lots of them . I will provide the titles to you soon.Thanks .)?Shyamsunder 09:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence

I don't have checkuser permissions, so I couldn't email them to you if I wanted to. Kevin_b_er 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit is the checkuser who answered the request. He is likely the one you want to contact. Don't be surprised if he doesn't send you the evidence, however. I've only once seen it published. Kevin_b_er 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AMAIRC

I'm sorry, but you can't be given access because you aren't an advocate. Sorry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam

That is great about your decision on Tipu Sultan ..but let me warn you, never call a muslim a mohammedian as this means 'muslims workship' mohammed as god and not Allah this is a direct insult to muslims as we are followers of islam and mohammed came as a prophet and please dont make this another issue in Tipu Sultan. perhaps you should apologize to muslim users.

Mujeerkhan 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the term "Mohammedean" is generally used by scholars to refer to Muslims so I used it also. There was no insult implied, nor did I make any claims that Muslims "worshipped" Mohamed. Plus, I'm sure that Jews, Hindus, christians, and Baha'ii would feel the same way about being routinely called "Kaffir" or "Dhimmi" of "Dar-al-Harb" yet the terms are frequently used by Muslims.Hkelkar 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mohamadian is generally used by scholars if you still live in the 15th century. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Durant didn;t live in the 15th cent and he used it.Hkelkar 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of his books were published decades ago. The word is not in common use now, except by Islamophobes. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Decades ago is not "15th century". Besides, which "Islamophobes" (in on itself an absurd neologism) are you talking about?Hkelkar 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about it's usage after the 15th century - I just know it's not in usage now. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohammedan is considered offensive, which is why it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. And no one uses "Mohammedan" nowadays except for Catholic Encyclopedia and the like. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but wikipedia is not governed by Islamic Fatwas.Hkelkar 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is governed by WP:Civil. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with the estate of Will Durant then.Hkelkar 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He died before WP:Civil was created. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But his estate is alive.Hkelkar 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:Civil doesn't govern his estate. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as I restrict my references to him, neither do I. I become incivil only if I use it outside of his context which I have notHkelkar 01:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it would be acceptable to refer to Jews the same way the Hitler did? Your behavior on Wikipedia is governed by policy; you can't just say others did the same as an excuse. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing a scholar like Will Durant to Hitler is paranoid and disgusting and a classic example of Reductio ad Hitlerum.Hkelkar 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The analogy fits. And also, please stop removing the sockpuppet notice from your other account. User:Pusyamitra_Sunga was established to be a sockpuppet. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the template for wording and Reductio ad Hitlerum does not refer to such arguments - read the page. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar doesnt have another account. Have 4 RFCU's not told you something.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you were forgetting this. Or do you wish to fantasize more anout "socks"Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how many changes are in that diff? Specify what you're talking about. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you read it? You obviously have the time to make useless reverts.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm not forgetting anything. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I (possibly) have a way for you and Netaji to conclusively prove that you are not the same person. Please let me know if you're interested. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have already proven it.Hkelkar 03:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you did that, then the last RFCU wouldn't have come back as "likely." It would involve the use of your university email. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check your h*****@physics.utexas.edu email. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration

Users there are gaming the system and calling well-researched informative edits vandalism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

You have once again reverted to your old version, which does not attempt an overview of both sides of the controversies with regard to Koenraad Elst, but simply uses buzzwords and quotes from the controversial person himself to present one side of the picture. Any attempts to let users see that the issue has two sides (without taking sides) are called "vandalism" by you. We can carry this game on ad infinitum, but it serves no purpose. You are obviously not used to scholarly debate, which abides by certain rules. I shall therefore let you write what you want to, and not attempt to alter anything any more, as it seems pointless to attempt a discussion with someone who is interested only in portraying his own version of things, and not in reporting various sides of an issue while putting his own predilections in the background. But be assured that this sort of behaviour is ultimately self-defeating. It simply puts people's backs up and serves to make anything on the subject published on Wikipedia to be regarded as propaganda. A pity. Don't bother to reply; I won't be looking at this page again. Kochank 10:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:Reliable Sources. I am within my rights to use Elst quotes as primary sources per wikipedia policy.Hkelkar 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

oh dear, I've done it again haven't I. I was referring to the sock artists. It seem obvious to me that you are not a sock of the Bose-Singh-continuum. I apologize I made it sound that way, I am just frustrated with the situation in general. Regarding the point just above, you are free to quote Elst in articles that deal with Elst or his "non-invasionist model" in particular. You are not free to quote him as a reliable source on articles that are not directly related to this: he is not. He is a rather dubious fringe author, and should be identified as such, or at least as present his views as those of an isolated author and not as if they were seriously entertained in mainstream scholarship. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But I am allowed to use Elst quotes to cite his views in the article on Elst because there I am using it as a primary source per WP:Reliable Sources.Hkelkar 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically says to be wary of primary sources, and to depend on secondary sources where possible. WP:BLP says information provided by the subject may be used if "[i]t is not contentious." --Xiaopo ℑ 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

pointed articles

I will look into those article once i get some time. Thanks.nids(♂) 12:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims

I have already verifed the cliams of the opression of the Jatts in: "Sindhi Culture, by U.T. Thakur. Bombay 1959 JA 300 THA" --James Wanten 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I will double-check because I am not satisfied with the language unless it is taken verbatim from the citation. I am fairly certain that it is not so, given the unscholarly nature of the wikipedia article.

Plus, if you have "verified" then plz give me page #s and/or Chapter #'s etc.Hkelkar 12:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Chapter is 7 pages 23 - 27 --James Wanten 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will check them shortly.Hkelkar 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Pls email me.-Bharatveer 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Accusing other users like Street Scholar is disrespectful and not civil. They can be considered a personal attack. Such accusations damage your own reputation and also create conflicts. I would request you to be more respectful concerning other users' edits that you find biased or in any other way unpleasant, and not make such remarks again. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also advise you not to make veiled attacks like this one. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful?Just look at his damned posts on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim. he is one of the most virulent bigots I have seen on wikipedia so far and I need not AGF with such people per WP:AGF (read the clause on when I don't have to assume good faith). Please leave me alone as your bias is clear to me in this matter.Hkelkar 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling other users "virulent bigots" is a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Furthermore, stating that other users' "bias is clear" is at least incivil, if not a personal attack. If you continue to make personal attacks an administrator may block you from editing. Please keep these policies in mind. Thank you. DRK 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The incivility of one user never justifies incivility from another user. There's a very simple rule with personal attacks - do not make them. When you see them, remove them. If you feel Street Scholar is violation Wikipedia policy, either report his actions to WP:AN/I, or start a request for comment. If you can shown me some diffs demonstrating him violating policy I will reprimand him. Thank you. DRK 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)