User talk:TerryJ-Ho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

User talk:Arch1

Contents

[edit] Busy in real life

I am busy off Wiki...Keep on your works...good or ***


[edit] defwarn on narendra Modi

No tendentious edits on Living people please.See WP:BLP

An important message

This notice has been left for you because another Wikipedia user suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims. Please see our policy on biographies of living persons.

Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. While Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act may protect Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted a defamatory claim on a Wikipedia page. The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees has ruled that: "Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers." (Wikimedia privacy policy in full)

If you may have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:

  1. If the material is still there, remove it immediately.
  2. Leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard saying that you have accidentally included defamatory claims in a named article or articles. Don't repeat the claims. The claim can then be deleted from the page history.

Hkelkar 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is a template used as a pretext to suppress facts and promote Hindutva versions see talk page of that article TerryJ-Ho 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[1]

[edit] Don;t mess up my talk page

Plus, do not deliberately confuse the issue. I do know a fair bit about the Hindu religion. Not only the Arya Samaaj but Smarta Hindus also reject the authority of post-vedantic Hindu scripture.None of these groups buy into the caste system.However, I am aware of your tendency to attack and defame Hindus across the board and have enough dirt on you to get you banned from editing India-related articles altogether. Unless your bad faith behaviour improves I will have no choice but to have you ArbCommed.Hkelkar 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, in case you're confused Kelkar is my father's name, not my mother.I am Jewish by matrilineage.Hkelkar 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Shalom, What do you write on your civil papers? TerryJ-Ho As per my belief a religion is what one follows not what one brings in ancestry.You may have your own ideas.I respect them though TerryJ-Ho

Jewishness is established by matrilineage.Plus, I am observant.Hkelkar 10:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't care

I am citing the refs and sources that say that the FATWA (religius declaration) was made by al-Barani and created the Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal divide. Also see Ambedkar's book for how disgusting this casteism was. Ambedkar even says it was worse than that among Hindus. This is Ambedkar. The great Babasaheb Ambedkar himself.Hkelkar 10:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You should better care - don't use this definitive language while editing Wikipedia.There are others whose views are as respectful and also there are others who care TerryJ-Ho
A fatwa is a fatwa is a fatwa is a fatwa. What's not to know about a fatwa? It's the thingie that clerics like Osama bin-Laden give out to order his henchmen to blow people up. That's all. Fatwa. Simple.Hkelkar 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't always go out to Uncle Osama - if you don't find anything else to write.If I write a book called Fatwa i Insaniyat. It means Views on Insaniyat but if I am not a Mufti It does not become a religious document.TerryJ-Ho 10:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR please.Hkelkar 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Giving you an example - is not an original research.If an article is sent for AfD it does not mean - I necessarily consider its authors as permanently malicious.You should better concentrate on page by page basis and not pulling up examples from the graves.It will help in your own standing on Wikipedia.TerryJ-Ho 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, your edits are all in bad faith.You expect me to trust you after what you pulled in the AfD? Lol!Hkelkar 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is assumed when you edit on WP - you should not distrust others intentions and rake up histories from other articles TerryJ-Ho 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you don't have a systemic anti-Hindu prejudice since you seem to me to be fervently obsessed with bashing Hindus like in the Tipu Sultan thing (another debate I'm winning). Boy, I must be driving you really crazy.First, the mediator turns on you in Tipu Sultan debate, then the AfD of yours gets thrown into the garbage heap. Now you're trying to confuse me with all this nonsense about fatwas-not-being fatwas and I'm not buying the Original Research and blatant violation of so many wikipedia policies I'll have to catalogue them.
It is time you got over this historical baggage.Misuse of historical edit histories n times will be construed as a bad practice.Edits of other editors are not all garbages.Please be reminded of decency TerryJ-Ho
I'll bet you're just itching to get me blocked, huh? Now that's what I call a true "personal Jihad".
Please abstain from judging my motives in a negative light and "Jihad".While you may not get blocked for your edits themselves misuse of these prjudical terms.I don't suffer from any itch either TerryJ-Ho
Well, we'll see what admins say.I am prepared with my case with all the facts. Are you?Hkelkar 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tell you what

I'll stop editing if you will stop editing. Please come to the talk page and discuss the matter.Plus, please keep your friends at bay here as this kind of warring does not help anybody.You be cool and I'll be cool. Halaal?Hkelkar 11:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I don't understand that "I'll stop editing if you will stop editing." - this is not a war and I don't have an army of friends here.I don't interact with them.Also I don't appreciate the use of religious terms with sarcasm."Halaal?" - Is it English? You should continue on editing providing valid reasons for your edits and similar for me.While discussions are good things - I am not in favour of discussions where people are already entrenched in their positions..and not willing to budge..I believe there are many editors ready to discuss issues in length like Bhaisaab and Hornplease whose positions are oppositte to you..I will certainly participate on issues and points where I can be of use..You can of course, write your objections and views on my talk page.I am ready to help if I can TerryJ-Ho 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
At this rate one of us is going to violate 3RR. Are you sure it's not going to be you?If the article gets protected then it doesn;t help either of us. As it is, we are dangerously close to the precipice and, of course, BhaiSaab will come charging by in a few hours and revert-war as usual (I'm sure that you are counting on that). Bear in mind that, regardless of the technicalities of 3RR, if there is edit-warring I will report BOTh you and BhaiSaab on ANI, citing precedence of behaviour in this article only since both of you have clearly violated the "electric fence" philosophy behind 3RR together on this article before. Anything for the great holy war on an infidel like me, right?Hkelkar 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This language Anything for the great holy war on an infidel like me, right - Please stop.TerryJ-Ho 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My predictions were 100% proven. Bhaisaab came charging in and ululated his way to getting the article protected.Maybe you should regard me as the Mujaddid or something, eh?Hkelkar 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Copy of

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.TerryJ-Ho

[edit] Interesting Items

[edit] Hindutva is fascism

[edit] Caste system's origins in Hindu Religion

5.6.1 India's caste system has strong historic ties to Hinduism. It delineates clear social strata, assigning highly structured religious, cultural, and social roles to each caste and sub-caste. Members of each caste, and frequently sub-caste, are expected to fulfil a specific set of duties (known as dharma) in order to secure elevation to a higher caste through rebirth. Despite longstanding efforts to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of caste, the practice has remained widespread. [Country Report para 6.345] The Constitution gives the President authority to identify historically disadvantaged castes, Dalits and tribal people (members of indigenous groups historically outside the caste system). These "scheduled" castes, Dalits and tribals are entitled to affirmative action and hiring quotas in employment, benefits from special development funds, and special training programmes. Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) are a scheduled caste occupying the lowest layer of the Hindu caste system.British Home Office

[edit] Articles used in Indian Caste System

These articles are for my personal reference,No writing between the lines for textual integrity

[edit] Hindutva- Rewriting Hinduism

These articles are for my personal reference,No writing between the lines for textual integrity

  • What Hindutva vadis want by rewriting Indian history and theology -

The contentious changes pushed by the Hindutva groups serve three purposes:

• Sanitise Indian history of its gross inequities. Talk about caste only in the past tense, remove anything suggesting that caste still determines the status of people in Indian society, and say that men did not have “more” rights than women, they just had “different” rights.

• Portray Hinduism as very similar to Judaism and Christianity — the politically dominant religions in the US. Erase references to plurality in Hinduism by tricks such as replacing “Hindu gods” with “the Hindu God”, and deleting text that says Hinduism comprises “many beliefs, many forms of worship, and many gods”.

• India as “Pitribhumi” only for Hindus. Delete references to a possible non-indigenous origin of the Indo-Aryans and move the origins of Hinduism back in time, making ‘foreigners’ of all non-Hindu Indians. [2]

Finally Why they want to add that Caste has a basis in Muslim religion here - Sulekha.com

"Hindutva groups objected to the prominence given in the texts to the caste system and ‘untouchability,’ which they asserted were not distinguishing features of Hinduism.30 They also tried to make a case that one’s varna status during Vedic times was not hereditary, but was ‘capacity-based.’31

HAF’s attempt to distance Hinduism from the caste system is disingenuous. As our forefathers knew only too well, there is little basis for either of the above assertions, which have been firmly repudiated by leading religious figures like the well-respected late Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati, Shankaracharya of Kamakoti Peetam (who also staunchly defended the ‘dharmic traditions’ of caste, which he felt must be protected and kept live.): “I will give firm proof in support of the view that caste is based on birth and not on the nature or quality of individuals.”32

HAF also complained that “other religions can historically also be associated with practices discarded by modern standards.”33 While that is true, HAF fails to acknowledge that unlike practices like slavery and serfdom, which are universally condemned today, prominent Hindu leaders -– including leaders of RSS and VHP, with whom California Hindutva groups are closely linked -– time and again defend the caste system, and distance themselves from ‘untouchability’ (VHP leader Ashok Singhal recently went to the extent of accusing Muslims of creating the abhorrent system!)34

Do the textbooks overemphasize caste? Hindu elites in the United States may very well feel so; but the books also encourage comparisons with the class system in the U.S. and try to stimulate discussions on whether the caste system was a good way to organize society at the time35. We would be doing a disservice to the students of Indian history, if we did not encourage such debates, without which a proper understanding of contemporary India would be well-nigh impossible.

As for the practice of untouchability, whether sanctioned by Hindu scriptures or not, it is prominently mentioned in the textbooks only because Hinduism’s “modern standards” have failed to discard it; and its coverage in the books, in my view, is entirely consistent with California’s Model Curriculum on Human Rights.56 It is a pity that HAF, which calls itself a Hindu human rights organization, has done precious little to address this massive violation of human rights practiced uninterruptedly for centuries, and chooses instead to defend the ‘human rights’ of Hindu elites."

Please do not corrupt the textual integrity of the above text by writing in between.These are for my refernce.


[edit] Articles for consultation: Hindutva and Wikipedia as a medium to redefine history

Virtual Warfare: The Internet as the New Site for Global Religious Conflict

  • resurgent Hindu fundamentalism (Hindutva) is redefining Hinduism and Hindu identities in a transnational, global context. The global project of Hindutva makes use of new global communication channels, including the Internet, and is apparently espoused by influential sections of the transnational Hindu middle class, especially in the United States. This paper examines a selected sample of Internet sites devoted to the spread of religious and fundamentalist beliefs and ideas particularly relevant to India and transnational Hinduism, and explores the ways in which the Internet is changing the shape of communities and the ways in which they represent one another. The paper puts forth the argument that in the context of globalization, the Net has become an important space for the creation of transnational religious identities. The Net is shaping religion, specifically Hinduism, in distinct ways and is the newest expression of religion's changing face. The battle for souls is being fought on Internet sites. The questions of this paper relate to the modes of representation of "other religions" as revealed particularly by Hindu sites, the ways in which Internet sites garner audiences, and the strategies they adopt to link themselves with both global audiences and local groups. A sociological analysis will reveal the shape of these discourses and link their popularity with the social and political context of globalization, a liberalized economy, and the organization of religious practice in post1990s India."

[edit] RSS: A terrorist organisation

Times of India The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is furious with an American think-tank for declaring it a terrorist organisation and lumping it with a host of jihadi organisations and secessionist outfits. RSS shares company with many Kashmiri groups

[edit] Having the last comment does not mean that the debates have been won

Some editors here have the habit of leaving their comments as the last one to ensure that if a third party sees them - they will believe their arguments have won.Some of these are persistent editors with a lot of free time.One has to ensure to see through the discussions and not be duped TerryJ-Ho 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

diff (in edit summary): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATerryJ-Ho&diff=83072778&oldid=83072077

Hkelkar 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::That is not a WP:PA - it does not apply on misuse of the templates TerryJ-Ho 10:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[3]

[edit] The Think Tank Link

Is very interesting:
It is ..The Hindu one tops it all.As it is the largest supposedly cultural organisation.Islamic organisations are all well known (for their activities) and they don't hide behind the facade of Cultural organisations TerryJ-Ho 10:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Most Muslim terrorist organizations operate through bogus charities and front organizations like CAIR etc.Hkelkar 13:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to them, Known terrorist groups Operating in India:

Muslim:25

Christian:4

Communist:5

Hindu:1

Per: http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Countries&file=index&view=113#terrorism

Organizations who dispute this assertion: Muslim:0 Christian:0 Communist:1 (Maoists) Hindu:1 (Despite the fact that the Hindutvaadis suck at publicity and the Islamofascists excel at it). http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1123740,prtpage-1.cms

Hindutuvavadis are the champions - in fact there is a list of research that has gone into the field of how the Hindutvavadis exploit the media for their petty ends TerryJ-Ho
ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh!What great WP:NOR. I enjoy refuting you my friend.You seem not to understand the concept of "Gracious in defeat". I have an Urdu word for you: Tehezeeb .Hkelkar 23:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Graciousness to disgraced does not apply.I don't write like you mate with such long ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhs and dear watson this tells greatly how pissed off you are....Tehzeeb does not apply to BeTehzib..it is extended to people with refined outlook..By the way you should remember the base of Wikipedia and that is WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BATTLEFIELD..Stop using words like Victory,Defeat,Jihad and Crusade,Show me where do you prove from your own point that this is not a WP:NOR - "Despite the fact that the Hindutvaadis suck at publicity and the Islamofascists excel at it" and remember that you have already got the last warning on Incivility.TerryJ-Ho 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Hmmmmmm. I smell a pattern here, eh (Muslim=25)? Thanks for the ref man!I'll get a subscription from the University. I'm sure I can get a lot of juicy-juicy dirt here.Hkelkar 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Get one.It will help you TerryJ-Ho
Oh, yes. I will.Hkelkar 23:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look at the references...

The word "Caste" is really mentioned. Read WP:NOR again wrt your edits.Hkelkar 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article referenced at number 2 - has not a single refence to word "Caste"
What do the artcles say?TerryJ-Ho
Which article are you talking about exactly?Hkelkar 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No use of the word Caste in this article that claims to support "There is also a caste system among Indian Muslims" [2].Secondly, even this source is suspect.Article is written by a MD Doctor whose credentials are not established as a sociologue.Read WP:NORyourself TerryJ-Ho 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
From reference:

The Muslims in India are categorized into two distinct classes based on their origins.This is similar to the caste system of Hinduism (so called Varnashrama)

However, you make a valid point concerning the doc.I think it's ok to get rid of the ref as we have clearly established that Muslims do have a caste system.Hkelkar 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Which article states above?Which Muslims have caste system.Do all of them?TerryJ-Ho

Take a look at the talk page of the article. A discussion was initiated as to the caste system in Latin America.The ref is there as a stop gap measure. I am getting books from the library that clearly detail the Latin American Caste System, which is why I put up an expansion tag.Plus, the JSTOR ref backs up the other citation and you need to establish that the source is not reliable.Hkelkar 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to get too far help is at hand with Encyclopedia Brittanica: Your edits are based on a wrong premise..In Latin America Caste does not correspond to the traditional use of Caste in English.Since the word is spanish it is extensively used to refer to racial segregation.See Encycolpedia Brittanica

<a title="All about caste on Britannica.com" href="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9020678/caste">Information from Encyclopædia Britannica about caste</a> TerryJ-Ho

refs for Latino castes:
  1. Caste in a peasant society by Marvin Tumin
  2. Human tradition in colonial Latin America by K. Andrien (establishes history)
  3. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America by J Chasteen
  4. Latin American Civilization: History and Society, 1492 to the Present B. Keen (clearly mentions caste system)
  5. Race and Nation in Modern Latin America by James Herriot et al. Talks about caste system today

I will get these books and expand the section.Hkelkar 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can expand anything but the real problem is that you fail to understand that these are different concepts.We have to go with the most accepted framework of caste or define each one differently as they mean and not mix all of them TerryJ-Ho
The article is titled Caste so all Castes need mentioning in all countries, not just the people you want to kill.Hkelkar 17:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
But then define them separately - bring in a dismbiguation page rather than bring an apology of the Hindu Caste system TerryJ-Ho
Not with your flagrant WP:NOR violations dost.Hkelkar 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Where? TerryJ-Ho
Pretty much everywhere actually, against consensus besides.Hkelkar 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am extending to you an official apology for your perceptions of incivility on my part. I expect an apology from you for your "Shut up" quip.Hkelkar 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure,To having to respond that way "Shut up" is regrettable.I have come online now only.On the other hand for you to respond to Basawala immediately after your apology by saying "Don't bother me" does take away a little value off your apologyTerryJ-Ho

[edit] Tagging Caste

Hi TerryJ-Ho, nice to know that you're trying to remove uncited material. That will certainly help Wikipedia, but tags shouldn't be put unless you discuss with the other party. Simply adding tags will not serve any purpose except provoking an edit-war. Remember, Wikipedia is not a Battlefield. Try to discuss with other editors and reach a consensus. So, assume good faith and contribute to Wikipedia. I welcome your contributions, but please keep cool and discuss !

--NRS | T/M\B 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Koenraad Elst

Hello TerryJ-Ho. I've been working quite some time on the main and discussion pages of Koenraad Elst. I tried to maintain the "controversies" section about this author from vandalization by our well known wikipedia Hindutva young wanderers... The fact that these people are trying to hide is that Koenraad Elst is quite suspect of ties with the right-wing (and also antisemitic) Dutch-Belgium (and now defunct) Vlaams-Block and with right-wing american neocons like Pipes. I saw that you conducted a survey about Koenraad Elst some time ago. Did you draw any conclusions about this author ? I'd be glad you'd share them with me. Cheers. TwoHorned 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi TwoHorned - Unfortunately, a very few people gave their views and their views - following the usual trend on these pages ended up becoming personal.No solid conclusions mate TerryJ-Ho 23:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Do not mess up the organisation of my talk page by vandalizing it again or I will report you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

diff [4]Hkelkar 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

if you look at my talk page, you will see that I re-organized the posts and deleted nothing so your last edit was vandalistic.Hkelkar 13:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutvavadi Tactics

....And, to those who are familiar with their tactics in India, their reactions were predictable: denying outright or trying to minimize their links to RSS and VHP; labeling anyone who dares to challenge them as "Communists" and "Nazis"; and initiating vicious smear campaigns against their better-known opponents........

[5]

One must investigate the partisan biases of racists like Michael Witzel first, no?Hkelkar 11:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the only word missing in the above was racist but that was implied in Nazis TerryJ-Ho 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the CPIM calling all their enemies "fascist"Bakaman Bakatalk 15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Which article proves that CPIM calls all their enemies fascists TerryJ-Ho 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my last name

I think you are referring to the verrrrry traditional Kelkars. My father's family is a bit more cosmopolitan actually, though religious.11:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh!Why is this so difficult for you to understand? My father is a Hindu. My mother is Jewish. They got married, had me, and I am Jewish by right of matrilineage. Get it?Hkelkar 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The Indian law books may say one thing, but Talmudic Law supersedes all :-). My papers identify me as Jewish only.The passport officer got confused once as he was not sure what "Judaism" was. It was pretty funny actually. We Desi Jews are lucky in a way. Historically, whenever a Jew in Europe or in the Middle East would admit to being one to a government official it usually meant shooting/beheading/hanging.Hkelkar 11:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and stop calling me a "Jew". To you I am "Jewish".Hkelkar 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The follower of Judaism is called as Jew as per most dictionaries.How do you pray?Are you circumcised according to Jewish traditions TerryJ-Ho 17:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And this not always Kelkar - Jew in Europe or in the Middle East would admit to being one to a government official it usually meant shooting/beheading/hanging - this is to large a generalisation.I won't say that.. TerryJ-Ho 17:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
and stranger still you use the word Jew so often but are against me calling you one TerryJ-Ho 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
My Indian passport does not list religion.Is your's special?TerryJ-Ho 22:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My passport does not either, but I was asked during application. Are you Indian????That's hard to believe frankly.Hkelkar 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Since you ask, yes, I have gone through Brit Millah. Incidentally, did you know that, during partition, Muslims in Pakistan were fishing out Hindus by raiding villages and asking men to drop their pants/dhotis and checking to see if they were circumcised? If so, the pass, if not, then instant beheading.The Pakistani Jews managed to get away with it coz they were also circumcised and were thus mistaken for Muslims by the Muslims.Thus, they managed to make it to India across the border. Some Pakistani Jews even took Hindu children with them to India (posing them as their own children) who were orphaned in the violence.Hkelkar

Also, the noun "Jew" is regarded as offensive when used by a gentile. This is so because traditionally it was used as an antisemitic pejorative ("You dirty Jew","You money-grubbing Jew","Die Jew-scum" etc.). The adjective "Jewish" is better. Just FYI.Hkelkar 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding passports, did you know that Pakistani passports force their citizens to officially acknowledge Mohamed as the one true prophet, even if you are a Hindu, Christian or Sikh Pakistani?Hkelkar 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Above Kelkar, is a hate speak and not elaborated on verifiable sources.This rhetoric - you should reconsider.Most often , when I say something , I make it a point to elaborate with sources that can be verified.If there are some issues now (including that of Sati) that I have commented on I will certainly make it a point to add sources..while you need better be considerate on attacking other Wikipedians with other backgrounds with such rhetoric unsupported by any verifiable textTerryJ-Ho 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sources?Well, take a look at a Pakistani passport sometime (yours, perhaps?).Also, read Khushwant Singh's books mentioning the atrocities on Pakistani Jews, particularly Train to Pakistan, where it is mentioned that Peshawar Jews smuggled Hindu children across the border, away from the hands of the Muslim mobs.Hkelkar 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hello, you are involved in a request for arbitration. Please see this case. BhaiSaab talk 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I have a fellow user

TerryJ-Ho's fellow user User:Geek1975 - thanks to Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to Google Censorship

Hi - I'm sorry that I missed your message for so long - but here's my reply anyway: I feel that you are correct - "Islam" should be usedin place of "Islamism". I have, I feel, mde this clear in the past. My reversion was not related to that, but rather to the inclusion of "hate speech" into the header, which obscured the section meaning. I see that BhaiSaab has made this change now - a change with which I agree :). Thanks, Martinp23 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hey Terry. I have noticed that you continue to update your post on the request for arbitration. I suggest you not worry about it yet, because it's only a request right now. Once the request gets accepted you can compile whatever you want into an evidence section that it will have. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting!

A message on my talk [6] page brought me here, and I found your words interesting: "I believe that as an Encyclopoedia - Wikipedia should be free from extreme ideologies of all types and that its items should be verifiable through an analysis of independent media". I fully agree with you, and I am also sure that you too agree with your words! --Bhadani 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In case, you feel offended, I regret. --Bhadani 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media and Hindutva

References - Education, Media And Hindutva Historian's panel report on inaccuracies in history books during the Hindutva based BJP regime Research on Indian identity in the US

[edit] RSS talk page

Why have you put an ad for a leture there? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Salam, could you add an email address to your profile so I can email you? BhaiSaab talk 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility notice

Hello Terry. I must remind you to remain civil and calm while editing any page on Wikipedia. Edits like these are considered incivil and seen as disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is disruption and incivility. Labelling other users constitutes personal attacks. [7]. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Talk and User Page

Are fascinating! I kept hearing "RSS" thrown around on a bunch of talk pages, but I didn't know what that was. I was getting ready to ask you why there's no Wikipedia article on this, and actually googled it (lol). RSS however, pretty much lead me right back to the disambiguation page on Wikipedia, where I found this: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Is this what "RSS" is?

It's certainly a well-crafted article, at first glance. It looks particularly interesting compared to what I find when I google "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh". I haven't yet had a chance to fully read everything though.

huh...NinaEliza 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to comment on my talk page.

cc'ed to Wikipedia talk:Did you know

While it'd be ideal if all DYK entries were checked in depth for accuracy, unfortunately that isn't always possible. Please note that neither Wikipedia:Did you know nor the Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide in any way ask the updating admin to go beyond checking that references are used, and to use their common sense about whether they're reliable or not. Bear in mind that prior to this "New Update" trial, updating the template already took over 30 mins. If all references have to be read and checked, it'd have been closer to 45-60, which was just more time than was reasonable to ask, since ideally this'd have to be done every 6 hours. And we still wouldn't be sure if the article was accurate if it referred solely to offline or non-English sources which the updater was unable to get ahold of or understand.

Remember that admins aren't the only ones who have to muck in here if DYK is to run smoothly. Anyone can fact-check entries on the suggestion page and leave a note if they're utter tripe. And with the new trial, there's a further check before it hits the MP if people actually bother to look at the Next Update template. Otherwise we have to rely on the Main Page masses to point out the error so that the entry can be removed as swiftly as possible. Remember that there's a very limited number of people working to update the template itself, and none of us are omniscient, knowledgable about every obscure and esoteric subject that crops up. My apologies if this sounds like a rant, but ultimately my point amounts to this: {{sofixit}}. You're just as able to do so as anyone else here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for the luck! I'm still doing A Levels... will be taking the tests in May. I see that you've lived at Basingstoke.... Kinsman! अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a blog

Prove that it's a blog.Does it say "blog" anywhere? Hkelkar 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the HRW report title was not altered, it was appended since people may not understand what "HRW" means. Please stop lying. Hkelkar 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But that particular isn't a blog post but an editorial. By your "logic" (using the term loosely) even rediff is a "blog". Hkelkar 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Now calm down and listen to me:

Sulekha is not "only a blogging site". It also contains notable articles (many by Muslims as well, if you look). If you see their navbar you will see links to "articles" and "weblogs". The eitorial is from the former link, not the latter.Hkelkar 21:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what? A criticism link needs to be there for neutrality. Shall I put the SAAG paper there or what? Even the HRW report has been linked twice.Hkelkar 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What I think is irrelevant. The notability of SAAG is beyond question. See South Asia Analysis Group and the academic endorsements therein.Hkelkar 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the FULL disclaimer? The director of SAAG endorse his view that HRW reports are biased:

Human Rights Watch is a prominent New York based organisation wielding considerable influence on American policymakers and on western perceptions of India. Unfortunately, their reports on events in India have been one-sided and biased. Rather than making an objective assessment of communal violence and human rights violations, the reports generally are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods. For too long these reports have gone unchallenged. Here is a detailed analysis of some of the recent reports of Human Rights Watch and an attempt has been made to set the record straight.

All the articles hosted anywhere regarding sociology, politics, religion are, in the final analysis, the "authors' opinions". His broad views are clearly endorsed by SAAG. Hkelkar 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, read the whole paper. You will see that it is well-written, scholarly, well-referenced, and unbiased. He does not deny the carnage, or make excuses for it. His tone is not polemical. He merely points out that HRW report is biased against Hindus. Hkelkar 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
One should qualify that it is a guest column, though. That part is fair. Hkelkar 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, give up the propaganda soapboxing. None of these incidents happened in the year in question.Hkelkar 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And no, I will not restore your egregious misrepresentations. The "boycott" is not a riot, it's a peaceful act so it does not belong in the article. If you do that then I will post a deluge of articles showing how Muslims in Gujarat are in collusion with Pakistan, the rise of fundamentalism, and the terrorist attacks on Narendra Modi. So do not go there buddy. Hkelkar 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm using wikipedia as a soapbox???What the heck^H^H^H^HGehennem have you been doing?????Hkelkar 11:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to you too buddy. Hkelkar 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shri Narendra Modi's coverage in TIME Magazine

For personal reference

. "Because the fire that burns in my heart is the same as the fire in yours." For anyone missing Modi's meaning, an overcome teenager in the front spells it out. "Kill the Muslim motherf_____s," she screams.Even the proudest patriot will admit that India's boast of being a bastion of live-and-let-live harmony has always been something of a lie. Muslim frustration at discrimination and Hindu resentment of governmental assistance to minorities explode every few years in violence. But as the March riots raged on for weeks in Gujarat, they provoked particular alarm. While human-rights groups demanded Modi be tried for genocide, Hindu political parties, cultural groups and hordes of street demonstrators celebrated him as India's great defender. From a political nobody, Modi was catapulted into the international limelight as the white-haired, bespectacled figurehead of Indian intolerance, a national Hindu hero.

BJP's Timeline on TIME

Interesting that you would enjoy bashing Hindus with above article, where it says that Parliament attack was carried out by Pakistani militants, which you people denounce as "Kafeer Hindoo lies". Shall I out this in the parliament attack article now, saying that the great Time magazine, bastion of the one true God blah blah, confirms that it was carried out by people from Pakistan? Hkelkar 11:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not concerned with any parliament attack or the likes.You can continue on calling the Hindus as "Kafeer Hindoo" - it is your freedom.But please don't litter my talk page with such characterisations of Hindus MerryJ-Ho 12:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Take this as a last warning.If you continue calling me as Pakistani MerryJ-Ho 12:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Are you saying that two independent op/eds are lying about Jayalalitha? Hkelkar 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[8][9]

[edit] what the heck

with the talk page message. I never removed the comment. Go find something better to do, preferrably not involving wikistalking and harrassment.Bakaman 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,mate I knew there could be a judgement error as I had multiple windows open on my laptop...I had apologised in advance.You may remove that comment.Don't you have that authority vested on yourself.Cheers MerryJ-Ho 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109Talk 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

this is appalling. A user with a clean reputation is given the same penalty as the confirmed returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer from hell? For pointing out that the user is the returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer from hell, a circumstance that the arbcom acknowledges on the very same page? Do arbcommers even read cases anymore, or do they simply sign where it says "support". All sorts edit Wikipedia. Including fascists. I know I have called fascists fascists on-wiki. Thank you arbcom, I am sure people will be really motivated to stand up against fascist editors seeing that they will be treated as one and the same. So TerryJ-Ho was incivil? Towards an obnoxious sockpuppeteer that has cost Wikipedia dozens of wasted man-hours? Well, ban him for 24 hours, then, or for a week at most, but this is simply out of proportion. dab (𒁳) 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/User_talk%7ETerryJ-Ho_cf29.html"