Sze cavalry01

Udham Singh

Hey, I wanted to thank you for the work you did on Udham Singh. You were able to take a very POV article and make it much more neutral. I cleaned up a few things here and there, but I really think you deserve commendation for your work. — BrianSmithson 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi BrianSmithson: Thank you for your contribution. As you must be aware, both O'Dwyer's and Dyer's acted very irresponsibly and in a criminal way to strike terror in the minds of people of India/Punjab and kill numerous innocent, peaceful and unarmed assembled at Jallianwala to peacefully express their disapproval of Rowlatt Act and the arrest and deportation of their popular leaderts Kitchlu and Satpaul etc. The murderous frenzy let loose on these unarmed people without even a slightest warning to disperse, obviously was designed to teach Punjabis/Indian a lesson for time to come was not a wise step. From all accounts, measure was drastic. It was an indensible and inexcusable political crime. Hence, most impartial people from across the globe term Amritsar Massacre as Butchery. Is it not therefore logical to create a Category called Butchers to include Article on this criminal Michae O'Dwyer into that Category?. As an administrator, can you please create the Category so that it is included in the Article on Michael Francis O'Dwyer, the Butcher?

Thanks brian. Have a nice day.

sze cavalry01

I believe there is already a category called Category:Murderers. There's even Category:British murderers. Perhaps one of those would suffice. — BrianSmithson 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that we've also got Category:Mass murderers. — BrianSmithson 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so. The term Murderer can not compass the manslaughtering of the colossal dimensions of the Amritsar Massacre. Wikipedia's own definition of a Butcher is the one who butchers the population of a given city or area . This ideally is the case for Amritsar Massacre. So we do need a Category of BUTCHERS to categorise Butchers like Michael O'Dwyer and General Dyer. Can you please create one. Thanks

The problem is twofold: First, any Category:Butchers would be ambiguous, as the primary meaning of "butcher" is someone who prepares animal meat to be eaten. Secondly, we already have Category:Mass murderers, which serves the purposes you are talking about, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The people you refer to would be best placed in Category:War criminals. - GCarty 19:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many Categories in Wikipedia which partially overlap and some of them are also may be Ambigous. Mass-murderer still does not truly depict the henious crimes the Butchers like Brigadier General Dyer and Michael O'Dwyer have committed against humanity. To do a full justice to these Butchers, we definetly need a Category for Butchers. As an Administratoer of Wikipedia, Please create one for ASAP.

Thanks and have a nice day.

If you want such a category, you need to find a better name for it. When most people hear the word "butcher", they do not think of mass murderers. Instead, they think of a guy who cuts up meat and runs a shop. Do you have an alternate title? — BrianSmithson 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The name is perfectly right. We definetly need Category on Butchers. A common reader of Wikipedia can easily differentiate between the ambuguous and the clear meaning of Butcher from the the context of the article. There should not be any excuse to not generate the reuested Butchers Category.

Go ahead and generate one.

Have a nice day.

Sorry. I still feel the title is too ambiguous. Perhaps someone else can help you with this. — BrianSmithson 02:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Brian, you appears to be a prejudiced mentality. That is ok for me, but dont betray it on the Wikipedia media. Once again I urge you to go ahead and generate the Category. We need it. You are the Wikipedia Administrator and I'm sure you would be reasonable and realise the importance of the Category.

Man, dont worry too much about its ambiguity. The readers are intelligent enough..more intelligent than me or You, to figure out what the Butcher means in the context. Looks like you are too much worrying about yourself rather than about the general reader across the globe. And I dont not need anybody's help except Yours. What I I'm pretty sure is that the category Butchers is especially needed to categorise the criminals, the butchers of humanity like the Dyers and O'dwyers to appropriately classify them and its perfectly ok to have Butchers category in Wikipedia.

So dont be stubborn for nothing. Go ahead and create one.

And have great day.

Hey, Sze. I'm sorry, but I still feel the name is not correct. And the only thing I am predjudiced mentality against is inappropriately named categories. :) Seriously, it doesn't take an administrator to create a category. Anyone can do it. Just have a look at Wikipedia:Categories for instructions. Just a warning, though: If you create Category:Butchers, it will probably end up at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. But feel free to go ahead and try. — BrianSmithson 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that even before the Category is created, you are hinting that it would be deleted. This probably speaks of your real inner feelings for the Butchers like Reinhard Heydrich (The Butcher of Prague), Douglas Haig (The Butcher of the Somme), Ali Hassan al-Majid (The Butcher of Kurdistan), and William Poole (Bill The Butcher). Other most important Butchers include General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer's and Michael O'Dwyer, who, through a pre-meditated plan, had committed Amritsar Massacre on April 13, 1919, Butchered over a thousand (according to some 1500 to 1800 casuilities) and wounding many more of innocent, unarmed and peaceful Indians civilian at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar.

I am surprised why are you so hesitant to comply with my genuine request for category on Butchers.

Question: Do you have soft corner for these two Butchers of innocent Indians?

Look, I'm not going to help you at all if you accuse me being sympathetic for mass murderers. I have told you why the category name is bad: The main meaning of "butcher" is not "a killer of lots of people". Just look at this link; your definition is #2, not #1. It is for this reason that I suspect the category would get nominated for deletion. And, again, you can try. It does not require an administrator to start a category. — BrianSmithson 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you are not helping anyway. Are you? Have a good sleep and wake up relaxed. And have nice night to you.

Just a heads-up: Category:Butchers is up for deletion here. Don't blame me; I warned you! :) — BrianSmithson 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sze, you voted on the wrong page. You need to go to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Butchers and vote. Also, don't forget to sign like this: ~~~~ — BrianSmithson 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On butchers

You could just create a category people guilty of brutal and indiscrimnate manslaughter in history. That way you would avoid idiomatic usage.

Pallava Article

Hi

Congratulations on your work on the Pallava article and the Origin of Pallava. For completion sake I have added a couple of tags so that the claims won't be disputed. Can you please add to the References section? thanks Parthi (Venu62) 22:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Reliable source

Your point is funny as well as uncivil - which version of the Hindu scriptures would you refer to and consider the correct one? Do you know where Vyasadeva's original work is, what it reads like? Is an English translation necessarily inferior to a Hindi/Sanskrit version? This Fire Burns Always 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr This Fire Burns Always 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not uncivil, but you are little bit tilted off the neutral. Probably you may tell us better where Vyasadeva's original work is. There are more than two main versions of MBH and all of them refer to these people as Kshatriyas. Even Ramayana versions refer to some of them and depict them as Kshatriyas. Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Puranas, Kautilya's Arthashastra also say the same thing. Of course, there are minor vatiations in the various recensions of these ancient texts as they went down the road and were redited. But the basic point is : they all refer to these tribes as Kshatriyas. So these are other sources which agree with Mahabharata. Are all these ancient sources unreliable? They sure specify many of these tribes as Kshatriyas.

And who said the English Translations are inferior to original Sanskrit Texts?. But the translations are after all translations and may not depict the original intent of the original writer. Hence you have to depend on translations from more than one translator for better perception.

We dont like to make fun of the mindsets of our criticisers or antagonists.

Regards, our dear old friend Rama's Arrow.

Have a nice day

Sze cavalry01 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Project template

I have replied here. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael O'Dwyer and Reginald Dyer

Hi buddy,

I admire your patriotism and the obvious passion that you feel regarding the massacre of hundreds of innocent Punjabis at Jallianwala Bagh. Your anger is more than justified.

However, I must tell you that, as much as I admire you, you are not being very friendly. Please understand that Wikipedia is meant to be run in the spirit of cooperation and that you are being overly hostile. The reason why several people have reverted your recent edits are because there are rules governing the categories of "Terrorists" and "Mass murderers." Specifically, both categories forbid adding people who committed atrocities on behalf of the state. Sure, we may colloquially call Michael O'Dwyer a terrorist or a mass murderer, but according to the rules of Wikipedia, we can't include him in those categories, because he acted on behalf of the government. I'm sorry, but that's the rules.

But, you ask a fair question: what category do they belong in? For the specific purpose of satisfying your request for a category to put O'Dwyer and Dyer in, I created a category called "Amritsar massacre." We can all agree that they both belong in that category. As luck would have it, we also found the category "State terrorism," which both men clearly belong in. I thought that, with the combination of the two categories, we would finally reach a nice compromise.

That's the spirit of Wikipedia: compromise.

However, immediately afterwards, you reverted those edits and are more or less accusing other users of being apologists for Dyer and O'Dwyer. You reverted my edit and then accused me of supporting the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Punjabis.

This is simply not right, my friend. I have done nothing to you except disagree with you on a minor point of what categories these people belong in. For you to make such a vicious personal attack on me is not only wrong, but also a violation of Wikipedia policy. You could get into serious trouble, including being banned, for engaging in such activity. It is in your best interest to not be so hostile.

Plus, people are trying to cooperate with you. We're all friends here. How about you try and cooperate, too? Please?

Thanks! --Hnsampat 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi dudi

Mass murder (massacre) is the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time, or over a relatively short period of time. Mass murder may be committed by individuals or organizations. This is reasonable category describing these state terrorists who masterminded the massacre obviously to terrorise the people of Punjab as is clear from the recent researches by scholars. Let's agree to that.

Have a good day.

Thanks

Sze cavalry01 14:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind, there is a request for comments going on for the articles on Michael O'Dwyer and Reginald Dyer, to deal with the categorization dispute. You can find the appropriate section the talk pages of the articles, and I'd appreciate if you make your statement (as an "editor previously involved in dispute", in the respective section) on the issue there. I also hope that you will accept the decision of the community, even if it will not support your point of view. -- int19h 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Majestic Kambhoji

Hi, as far as I know, majestic is merely a subjective description. The raga itself is named Kambhoji. It may have been described as majestic by musicologists, which I dont deny, but such a description lies in the realms of subjectivity, and is inappropriate to be included in the name of an article.

There are other ragas considered majestic too, but that is no reason to make such a description a part of the name. --Kris 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you aware of Carnatic Music or of Wikipedia's naming conventions? Neither is the raga itself known to anyone as majestic nor is it "majestic" to all. "Majestic" is not part of the raga's name. Any raga can be called majestic, that is just a POV. If you like a singer XYZ, that doesnt mean you can name a title as "the great singer XYZ".

According to Wikipedia's Principles Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns, the most common title takes precedence. Hence the most common way of referring to the name of the raga (which is "Kambhoji) should take precedence. You can search in google for how many times it is called "majestic kamboji" versus just "kambhoji". Thanks. --Kris 17:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Kambhoji--Kris 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Kambhoji

Your recent edit to Kambhoji (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 20:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleophis

I have no desire to get into an edit war with you over this article. It's clear to me that you have a lot of knowledge and can be an asset to WP. However, it is not enough that articles be well sourced, they must also adhere to a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV.--Kubigula (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Aldux 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Hindukush Kafir people

ask123 has posted a response to your comment on the discussion page for article Hindukush Kafir people. Please link here to its talk page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindukush Black-Robed Kafir people

Hi there; your statement is, I regret to have to say, incorrect. This article was considered at WP:AfD, and achieved one nomination for deletion, three votes for deletion, and no vote for retention. This is regarded in wikipedia, after the expiry of a five day period, as a consensus, and hence I deleted the article. You did mis-spell the title, and may wish to check my statement on looking at the correct link at the head of this comment.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there; I would be grateful if you could indicate if you are satisfied with this answer. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Nuristani people"

ask123 has posted a response to your comment on the discussion page for article, Nuristani people. Please link here to the appropriate sub-section on the talk page. ₪ ask123 {t} 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj

Please do not comment more than once on AfDs. Please do not refactor other people's comments to make it appear that they have "voted" in a different manner from which they have. And please do not attack other people who have commented. I have refactored and removed all such comments from this AfD. Any further editing of this type may lead to you being prevented from editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Black Kite 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Black Kite gave clear reasons why they reformatted this AfD page. I believe that you should not have reverted Black Kite's changes and would kindly ask that you undo your edit. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violation

This is to let you know that I have tagged Kambojas and Cambodia as a copyright violation. It is largely taken from the web site http://www.kambojsociety.com/kambodia.asp. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Migration of Kambojas

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Migration of Kambojas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migration of Kambojas. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Sze cavalry01! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 414 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. R. K. Kamboj - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of R. K. Kamboj for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R. K. Kamboj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. K. Kamboj until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. J04n(talk page) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Sze cavalry01/Former Kafirs of the Hindukush

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Sze cavalry01/Former Kafirs of the Hindukush, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)