User talk:Unre4L
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Please sign messages on Talk India page
Please sign your messages with four tildes ~~~~ Unsigned messages cause a lot of confusion because they appear to be part of later signed messages; consequently, users address their replies to the wrong person, as I did on the Talk India page. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- PS. I look forward to receiving references from you on the Talk India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your last message
Thanks for your last message on the Talk India page. As I said there, I don't disagree with your observation. Personally, if it were up to me, I would write, " ..., IVC, in what is now Pakistan and Western India," (in the history section) but because brevity is needed on the India page (it is already bloated) and because all kinds of Indian chauvinists will jump right in and change it back to suit their personal world views, we have to be content with "Indian subcontinent."
BTW, a historian on harrappa.com--Mark Kenoyer, of the University of Wisconsin, is someone I respect. Thanks for pointing out harrappa.com, I look forward to reading Mark's essay there one of these days ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] from Nadirali
Hello,I got your message,but I unfortunately didnt get any link.I'd love to help Pakistani site in anyway I can.
I also advice you against posting on talk pages if there are too many Indian users as they usually like to gang up.
Please do send me the link and please help keep the Pakistan articles safe from the vandals.Also contribute to the Pakistan related articles as much as you can.
Please also write to user:Szhaider. He's a proud Pakistani wikipedian and would just love to hear from someone like you. Szhaider has recently engaged in edit wars to protect all refference to the IVC from falling into the History of India page.He's also stood up to some biased Indian administrator threatening to block him.I have offered my verbal support to him and your adding your support will just give him more courage.
I also suggest you also arm yourself with vandal-proof to keep off vandals.SImply visit the category below my user page and add the codes to your userpage.It will be very hlepful.
Thanx alot for contacting.Regards.Nadirali 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
[edit] I got the link
Okay thanx alot for the link.I also again warn you from engaging in any conversation with some of the Indian wikipedians when raising the issue of Pakistani history,And watch out for user:HeklerHekler.He's full of tricks and extremely provokitive.Do not converse with him on this subject.he almost tricked me into getting blocked.
Also dont forget to contact user:Szhaider.He'd just love to hear from another proud Pakistani like you.He's also working hard to protect all reference of Pakistan's ancient history from falling into Indian hands.
Anyways thanks for the link and I'll see how I can contribute to the site.Also keep in close touch with other Pakistani wikipedians if you can.All the best.Nadirali 05:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
[edit] Question
Hi Unre4L, I saw the discussion at Talk:History_of_India#indian_hijacking_of_Pakistan.27s_history and posted a question for you which I'll hope you will answer. Thanks a lot GizzaChat © 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Answer posted Unre4L
[edit] Panini
Hey, I appreciate that you feel strongly about references to the "ancient Indian subcontinent" (indeed, your user page makes it clear that that's your raison d'être so to speak). But I'd like to point out that you violated WP:3RR on Panini in the last two days, and that continuing to revert will result in your getting blocked. Instead of edit-warring, try and build consensus on the talk page. Good luck. --Xiaopo (Talk) 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR block
You have been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three-revert rule at Pāṇini. Please refer to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Unre4L reported by Bakaman (Result: 24 hours). More information on the three-revert-rule can be found here: WP:3RR. You are welcome to return after your block has been completed. -- Samir 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] advise
Unre4L,perfectly I understand how you feel about Pakistan's history being robbed as I feel the same way too.
However,I discourage you from responding to wikipedia:trolls.Do not respond to Bakaman's provokitive comments. Bakaman already provoked me into getting blocked once and was also told to stop being so provokitive by an administrator.
Also,I think readers on that discussion page(Indian,Pakistani or others)will be able to see that someone cares by reading the topic and discussion. And just for the fact that we brought up the subject,it will definately give readers something to think about.The whole point of brining that up was it brings it to people's attention. This is a first positive step on our side.
But I also warn you to abide by the rules and not carry out any violations,as that harms nobody but you.
Szhaider has attempted to remove Indian tags from the IVC and other south asian history articles,only resulting in an edit war.Not only that,but he was threatened of being reported by a biased administrator.He is now currently in the process of creating a "History of south asia" article to make it more "neutral" based on the demands of other wikipedians.
If you want to try and help out or state any objections to Pakistani-related articles,then you can bring it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Pakistani_Wikipedians or talk to Szhaider about it.
But refrain from responding to Bakaman's "Pakistani textbooks","anti-Hindu" or "the Indus was a Hundu civilization" or lectures on the persicution of Hindus or any of that non-sense.
I'll talk to Bakaman seprately regarding her comments if you want me to.She's already been told by administrator:tariqabjotu to stop,but if it continues,don't repond.Instead,copy and paste these comments on administrator tariqabjotu's talk page as he's already warned her from continuing her behaviour.Responding will only get you into more trouble.
I hope my advise proves useful.
Regards.Nadirali 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
- The problem Nadirali and Unre4L, is that you have a misconception of what Wikipedia is for. You may feel that Pakistan's history is being robbed, but reflecting what you feel is not what this project is here for. Wikipedia is specifically here to reflect what the consensus of scholars have written. Please read and think about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You don't need to turn everything into an us vs them. Just do good research and add facts to articles to help them reach NPOV, not your POV. - Taxman Talk 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats the whole problem Taxman. The stuff I am arguing about doesnt have ANY sources. Apart from hindu sources. I asked them about one single source which said that they guy was ancient Indian. They couldnt give me any. Their only comeback was Pakistan didnt exist in 1947. Why am I getting the feeling you are refusing to understand aswell? User:Unre4L
- Your statements above conflict with each other. But in any case, if the fact is that there are only "Hindu" sources, then I'm sorry you'll have to accept that. If you can't provide sources for your position, you can't keep reverting your edits in. That is Wikipedia policy and for a reason. But you're really missing the more important point about Wikipedia not being here to promote your views. If you don't come to accept that you're going to have a hard time here. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
