User talk:Freedom skies/30 December, 2005 - 4 September, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Adithada 2 INBUAN 3 Dalip image 4 No Personal Attacks, please 5 (Coincides with History of India) 6 Pakistani history 7 Freddie Mercury 8 Thanks 9 Nonsense 10 Hi 11 Rabid Opinions 12 Problems 13 3RR block 14 Your edit to Muhammad Mehmood Alam 15 warning 16 3rr 17 Do not delete content from talks 18 Indian Nationalism 19 Removal of Ref needed from Indian History 20 Indian martial arts 21 leave the disputed tags on the article 22 blanking 23 look 24 JFD 25 Subhash Kak 26 Greek language and "longest history" 27 Proper and improper citation 28 Fair use images on user page

[edit] Adithada

Hi, could you add some more information to the article, I couldn't find anything else :/ - FrancisTyers 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] INBUAN

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as INBUAN, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! --Ragib 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalip image

I couldn't help but notice that the picture you provided for the Dalip article, while a nice picture, lacks any information on licensing or where it came from. If you could add it, that'd be good, otherwise it is in danger of being deleted. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Freedom skies - I compliment you on putting a good fight on the POV and nonsensical info on Pakistan. The attitude that Pakistan was separate from ancient times and that India as we know it did not exist, is purely revisionist history. However, please be careful your own edits for factuality and NPOV.

I wish you all the best - hope to work with you soon. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks, please

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Please see the relevant Wikipedia guidelines at WP:NPA. This is regarding your edit on the Talk:Pakistan. Please stick to the discussion of the article contents, rather than any ad hominem attacks. Thanks. --Ragib 05:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my point, whatever you discuss on the subject matter of the article is fine. Just don't shoot the messenger ... and Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree. --Ragib 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Coincides with History of India)

If you add this anymore I will block you. If you can get consensus for it then we can talk. But use talk pages first. If I see you do it again I will block you for 24 hours. gren グレン ^? 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani history

I told you I would block you if you made that edit again and I have. The most important issue on this for me is the style you were trying to employ. You do not do that in history. Secondly, it's obvious that Pakistan as a state did not exist until 1947 but we use the discrete states of modern society to split up the study of history. "Pakistan in 1800" would be referring to what existed in the present state of Pakistan in 1800. It is not a claim that Pakistan is eternal. Just like all of what is territorially India has not always been historically India. The NWFP of Pakistan was not under Indian control for many many years and centrality of Indian control makes no sense in parts of history because of the many different Princely States that ruled throughout different periods of time. If you read the intro to History of Pakistan it says "The History of Pakistan for times preceding 1947 overlaps with that of the history of India, Afghanistan, and Iran. Pakistan was a state created out of the territory of British India in 1947". I am not some Pakistani nationalist... (in fact, I'm not Pakistani nor am I Muslim). It's just how we talk about history. The History of any country runs into snags and we simplify it. Would I be safe to say that you want the article to read like History of Saudi Arabia which only talks about it after the House of Saud came to power? The biggest problem like that is Indian dominance over all of what is regionally Pakistan is not so clear... I will reduce your ban to a nominal 1 hour but do not add it to the heading again. We want to make this issue a clear one... but your edits are horribly styled and not something to be put into a heading. gren グレン ^? 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freddie Mercury

-Freedom Skies, this is Afghan Historian from the Pakistan page. I've been doing some work to make the fact known that Freddie Mercury was a Briton of Indian Parsi heritage. This gets blocked by people who say he is Persian/Iranian. They bring up these false claims that his parents were proud of being Persian. They ignore the possibilities of him hiding his South Asian background and they claim that he knew Dari or Farsi from a few cheap Arabic words in his songs that he probably picked up in Zanzibar or among Urdu friends in India. Can you help me in this regard, if you know anything about the subject? I'm not an Indian nationalist, just so you know. I'm just a neutral Pakistani-American college Sophomore who prefers FACTS as opposed to OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS!!! -User: Afghan Historian (I have to sign without being logged in right now as I have to go urgently.)

[edit] Thanks

I know that there has been a disagreement among us for the Pakistan article and our opinions about Pakistan's histoty. But I must say that your added line to the Pakistan article was not biased, and I myself agree with it. You know when to keep emotions out of things, especially in the articles. Thanks for not degrading the article. Stallions2010 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

It's me again, Stallions2010. I have a request for you. Check out the Pakistan talk page. An extremely hateful person has said that Gandhi is a terrorist and doesn't deserve to be on the page. I disagree, and am sure you do. This person says he's a "Disgusted Pakistani", but I doubt he's Pakistani at all, because every Pakistani I've ever met admires Gandhi. Please put your input on the page to stop this nonsense. Thanks.
P.S. I hope you like the barnstar I awarded to you. :) Stallions2010 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For your comments at Talk:Pakistan, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Pepsidrinka 05:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi! That was good battering of the fanatic in Pakistan talk page. I could not do it due to this wiki-etiqutte stuff! I wonder how can such an educated person act in such a blind way! Disgusting. BTW, why is you talk page empty? Where are the previous contents? Bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabid Opinions

I find it important not to hold many rabid opinions especially pretaining to policies and politics. -- Jimmy C. 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Hi Freedom skies - I must discourage the type of edits you've made on Indian nationalism. They sound boastful, and push nationalist POV. It is Wikipedia policy to remain completely neutral in language, tone and data.

Also, it is not proper for you to delete all comments from your talkpage - it is considered discourteous and rude. If you want to clean the page, then created a user talk sub-page where old messages should be moved - a process called archiving.

As you've been asked to address similar problems before, I request you have a close look at Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and incorporate criticism fully. Please do not revert war or be uncivil to anyone, even users who themselves break those rules. This Fire Burns 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you thought my tone was "stone cold" even though you've deleted all messages from your talkpage - something considered quite rude. Please understand that I don't have a problem with you, and its not my intention to attack your editing, but there are issues that need sorting out. This Fire Burns 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. This Fire Burns 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

. Duration = 24 hours. --Ragib 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Muhammad Mehmood Alam

Please do not delete information from Wikipedia as you did here [1]. I have tried to improve the article and make it more verifiable, which is a better way forward. Thank you. --Guinnog 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Guinnog. Of course MM Alam's kills have been inflated but surely it is not an urban legend or folklore since he has produced the most flight kills by a single individual in an Indo-Pak war, though it may be enough to qualify him as an air ace. IAF admits to 3-4 confirmed kills by MM Alam. That should settle it I hope since I'm reverting again. --Idleguy 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

look, this is a warning... your article is obviously disputed. you can keep the article if you wish as is, but because it is disputed, please leave the NPOV and the Disputed titles at the top. This is a warning and there is a policy against multiple reverts. Steelhead 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete content from talks

Per above. This is against policy. :: Colin Keigher 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Nationalism

User CiteCop has been deleting well-known points in the Indian Nationalism article saying that they are "not referenced". I'm looking for citations to please him, but maybe he'll still delete stuff. Please lend a hand if you can spare the time. Thanks.Netaji 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Ref needed from Indian History

Hi!! I noticed that you have removed the unreferenced template from the said article. However, you have not given a reason in either your edit summary or in the talk page. The article still contains many unreferenced statements. Until we reference them and organize it better, it will not become encyclopedic in nature. I was hoping that one day it might be a featured article as it has a lot of data in it - but it needs a lot of referencing and reorganizing to reach that level. Should we put the tag back on so that people who look into referencing can find this article and improve it ? Cheers and happy editing Shushruth 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note regarding reintroduction of the template! Shushruth 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian martial arts

Good job on the page. Kennethtennyson vandalized the Indian nationalism page, and its good you engage him in a real debate.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leave the disputed tags on the article

look buddy... it's pretty obvious that the article is disputed or else we wouldn't be in this month long discussion about it... leave the freaking tag on their to reflect our views... we are currently in an edit war. Kennethtennyson 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blanking

Why did you blank your talk page 8 times? Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to archive it. Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] look

Kennethtennyson accused you of being User talk:Indran croos sockpuppeteer [2]. And here [3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFD

JFD saved your hide on this one [4]. Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subhash Kak

I will look into the matter, Thanks.Shiva's Trident 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek language and "longest history"

We've had that discussion before. Result the last time round was that "the longest history" is actually correct: while Anatolian was attested earlier, it wasn't attested longer, because it died out. The length of time of attestation - from c. BC 1200 until today - is really longer for Greek than for anything else in Indo-European. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper and improper citation

This is how Ancient India's scientific achievements were attributed.

CiteCop: that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.

Freedom skies: Would be glad to, these links [5][6][7][8] were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.

Ancient India’s contributions to astronomy are well known and documented.

I consulted The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy[9] as well as The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy[10] and neither of them corroborated Kak's claims.

This hardly qualifies as "well known and documented".

Calculation of Earth’s circumference.

The word "circumference" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

Theorizing about gravity.

The word "gravity" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world.

Neither "Pakudha" nor "Katyayana" appears anywhere in the four Kak papers cited for this section.

Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit.

The word "sapekshavadam" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west."

This quote by Aryabhata appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics." [11][12]

This quote by A.L. Basham appears in none the four Kak papers cited for this section.

At the barest minimum, the very least that one ought to expect is that, when a source is cited for a quotation, that the quotation appear somewhere in the cited source.

Material attributed to a source that does not verify the text not only may be removed, it ought to be removed.
CiteCop 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images on user page

Hi, fair use images are not supposed to be used in the user space. Please remove all fair use images from your user page ASAP. You may want to read WP:IUP. --Gurubrahma 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)