User talk:AMbroodEY/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu Creationism

I will point out that 2/3 or more of the article has already been removed by people who I guess might have been offended and I am trying to understand. You can find it in the history and see if you are offended too. I do not quite understand what there is to be offended at, since I am not a Hindu or Indian.--Filll 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My article and take on it might be wrong, but I went from the sources I had and from a Hindu who helped proof read it.--Filll 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of the politics of Hindutva. Here is what I read (which hopefully I will recall without too many errors):

  • They changed textbooks in India and caused consternation over stances on certain issues
  • There is some discrimination against Dalits as part of Hindutva.
  • There is some antiMoslem or antiChristian or anti-whatever parts of Hindutva
  • Hindutva is associated with strict belief in some of the tenets of Hinduism

Right or wrong? And why? I also have some more retarded questions if you would permit me.--Filll 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT:HNB#Attention_everyone

GizzaChat © 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week

You have been invited to help improve the article Sita Ram Goel in this weeks's Hinduism collaboration. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. See also these related articles. [1] If you can, please also help improving the book articles, otherwise they may get deleted.

You can also vote for next's week collaboration at the project page: Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week. Unfortunately, the Collaboration site is little known, that's why the reminder. --Bondego 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

With regards to your comments on Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar discussion page: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. The following comments were uncalled for:
"First i'd do take additional English lessons."
"By your dumb logic."
"AN article doesnt become disputed just because you get nationlistic epileptic fits, every now and then."

And please refrain from removing "disputed" tags because YOU dont agree with them. The tag was removed 10 mins after I put it.

Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Unre4LITY 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A message from Vishal1976

This war started at the article Jyotiba. I was very long time wating for anyone to creat this article , god Jyotiba is our clan god and i want to give complete information about god on wikipedia. Finaly this article was created and i was very happy but suddenly just in seconds this article was created this two guy , basterds started vandalising it by missuseing Wiki rules. It was very clear that their intention was very bad and first i warned them in good legal language. But they don't listen to me and went further and started vandalising other Maratha artiles. We can bear personal attatcs but not on our gods and prides anymore. So i request all Maratha brothers that they start to take strong action agains this peoples,entities. All we know that this southindian people are Bhangi, geneticaly infirior and basterds peoples of India . They have not participated the freedom struggle of India nor the deserve to call an Indian. They are pure bread Deshdrohis, decivers , cheaters of our nation and Hindu , Aryan religion. So we should , all Marathas gathered and fight against them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vishal1976 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Move along fellas nothing to look here... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 08:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Namaste AMbroodEY. I recently created a template for Sindhi Wikipedians that I thought you might be interested in. You can find it at Category:Sindhi Wikipedians. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey thanx Anu ,u r here before me.

Dear AMbroodEY , u can add Category:Sindhi Wikipedians on ur page.it is make ur page more beautiful.thanks Khalidkhoso 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] River Wey

Yes, too many photos. I agree. I removed 2 but then I had to make the last one a little larger. Hope you think it looks better . PS I'm sorry you're an insomniac but wikipedia is obviously benefiting. SuzanneKn 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck with your A-levels

all the best. As a geography teacher I'm delighted that you're studying hard SuzanneKn 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A suggestion

I understand your need to edit articles after I correct articles using sources. But could you at least present some sources for your argument? In the IVC article, you wrote, "partition of India", when I corrected it to "Partition of British India". India has never been partitioned. I assume you already knew that, and we have already been through the argument of, What India refers to.
 However the warning is for your random insults towards everything Pakistani. Your only justification of editing articles is my name, and some anti Pakistan comment. Please get to the point instead of making some pointless comment, which I find offensive, since you are supposed to be posting some argument for your edit.
 "vv partition of india is the correct and academic term. Unre4L your pathological hatred with RoI may be understandable but puhlease we are writing an ecyclopedia here not a Pakistan Studies textbook."
 Thats the comment I am referring to and just for the record. I dont hate RoI. And its funny you should mention Academic sources, because you ignored those things last time when I proved the validity of the term Ancient Pakistan.
 Regards. --Unre4LITY 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please dont edit my posts. If you dont want them on your talk pages, then delete them altogether or score them out. You are not allowed to edit someones post. --Unre4LITY 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for the template

Dear u r welcome. i need ur help.some of users are editing sindhi wikipedian again and again and using it for political reason.please some steps so that they should not bound us to accept MQM. c history page of. u will know what i am trying to say.

Best Regards

Khalidkhoso 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


i agree ur comments on my page.Please keep it on ur watch list.i will be thankful to you.

Khalidkhoso 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Unre4lity

Hi - yes, his report on ANI against me also contains many false accusations which may/not be construed as personal attacks. However, I've seen a gist of your clashes and I must strongly advise you to keep your emotions under control and behave properly. It is not justifiable to make derogatory comments about someone's intelligence. Yes, Unre4lity, Nadirali and Szhaider have been behaving in a disruptive fashion, but you must not behave the same way. His warning to you is credible. Rama's arrow 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Raigad.JPG

Hi, took a shot of the same scene you uploaded... I replaced your image with mine. plz check it out and tell me if its ok... otherwise go ahead and rev it :) --hydkat 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have more pics of the steep ropeway climb, the statue and the market area... I can't do anything about the grills though... thats a new addition there. --hydkat 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Cheers for the Barnstar. It is much appreciated. Back to it... Regan123 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] be civil

Your recent comment on user talk:Unre4L was unjustified - all disputes need to be resolved in a civil fashion. If your incivility and abusive conduct continues, you may be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rama's arrow 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And he feels "compelled to defend" himself... You need to keep your own behavior in check, period. He did not do that and he was blocked. Rama's arrow 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Aite, both Unre4L and AMbroodEY - please be cool and don't keep posting ripostes, stoking fires. I would like to see both of you "earnestly" (not sarcastically!) apologize to the other - that's a suggestion I'd like you two to consider seriously. Both of you are guilty of offending the other - now either you can admit that your conduct needs significant improvement or you can take your feud outside Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Yes, the history book is biased and reflects the Pakistani POV. That's exactly why it should be there. We let readers know about notable views on a subject exist, whether or not we agree with them. The Pakistani POV on the Partition is presumably held by millions of people. That makes it notable. It may be wrong, but NPOV demands that we just put it out there and let readers decide. Don't try to shut out other POVs and thereby force readers into accepting your POV. Trust the readers to see through bias. Zora 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is very much about giving competing POVs. You have completely misunderstood the NPOV rules if you think that they require WP to publish only "truth." We give all notable POVs. That doesn't mean all POVs, just the ones that are commonly held and likely to be encountered by the encyclopedia user. The Pakistani POV is notable. Though it's unlikely that all Pakistanis have opinions about Pakistani history, a sizeable chunk of them must share the HoP beliefs, or it wouldn't have been published. The Hindutva POV is also notable -- though I don't believe (as you seem to believe) that all the people who voted for the BJP endorse all Hindutvadi beliefs; they were just voting against corruption and stagnation and for change. Instead of endless fighting for control of the article, and the right to declare one's own beliefs true, we just say, "A believes X and B believes Y and C believes Z." Present all arguments and let the reader choose. When people "get" this, arguments often disappear.
You can work with your enemies if all sides follow NPOV. The article on Salafism is probably a mess again -- I haven't had time to work on it -- but for a while, I was working harmoniously with a Salafi Muslim who understood NPOV and was willing to play by the rules. By his standards, I was a shameless kafir, and by my standards, his beliefs were frightening and wrong, but ... we were able to collaborate. We just made sure that all sides were presented.
Instead of trying to take over articles and remove POVs you don't like, let others speak. Please. Trust that readers will see through what is bogus. Zora 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the bounty on Hinduism!

How long does it last for? Money should help speed up the FA process. It's a shame the editors don't get the money :)

Btw, I suggest when arguing with Unre4L etc. (anyone that has a different opinion to you) never criticise the person (Thats almost a personal attack, even avoid calling them a troll, it just adds fuel to fire), but criticise their points only. When admins or neutral editors come as a 3rd party to adjudicate, they are more likely to agree with you if you have a well argued case instead of saying the other guy is a troll. From now on, I'm steering completely away from controversial stuff because I'm on a semi-break for the next nine months (last year of secondary schooling) and will on push for FAs, GAs, improve articles. Best wishes on Wikipedia and on your real life endevours. GizzaChat © 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey there, good to meet you too. I replied to you on my talk page. I thought you may be interested in participating at Talk:Shilpa_Shetty#Advertising or the related Village Pump discussion if you feel you have something to contribute.

By the way I noticed from your talk page that you are Sindhi. So am I, good to meet you again. :) Ekantik talk 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I don't know what your stance is on participating in such discussions these days but it dab, deep and d-boy have agreed on renaming History of India to "History of South Asia", "History of the Indian subcontinent" or "History of Greater India". Meanwhile, referring to the History of Pakistan, Unreal wants us to take it one step at a time which is very considerate of him. Also note that Unreal and Mercenary are politely asking Indian editors what they are doing on Pakistan-related article and why they keep vandalising them when Pakistanis don't vandalise India-related articles. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Indian mathematics

This is regarding this edit made by you on the page Indian mathematics. I see that you have never edited the article before, yet you decide to revert the article to a version of a banned user. [2]. Take note of the fact that "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Please discuss on the talk page of articles before deciding to unilaterally revert an article. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it would have been better to discuss first on the talk page instead of plain reverting which does not lead us anywhere towards our goal of writing a comprehensive article. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh on your talk page. It irked me to see you simply reverting like that. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have any specific problem with Fowler, then you could discuss it with him, or file an RfC against him. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British India and India dab

I have temporarily changed one of the references to "British India" to "India dab" on the Chandrasekhar page, as a temporary compromise. BTW, the business of changing British India to India dab is not anything Wikipedia has settled upon. It was only something discussed on the discussion page started by Rama's Arrow and, judging from the number of dissenting opinions, is not even remotely a WP policy. BTW, in his own autobiography at the Nobel foundations site, Chandra himself refers his birthplace as Lahore, then British India.

As for my being a meatpuppet for any one, I'd suggest that you keep your personal flights of imagination out of edit summaries; someone less easy going could take you to task. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Pakistan coming first have to do with meat puppetry? Sind, after all, is a province of Pakistan. That was my only reason to move Pakistan up. I did that in part because I thought is would stem the tide of nickel and dime edit-wars being fought there. Don't know if it worked, since I never went back to that page... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As for Sindhi literature, frankly it was something I did, as I said above, to be conciliatory. As far as I could see, the Pakistani editors didn't want the India template there at all, but I thought this might placate everyone. As I said, I haven't gone back to page, nor do I intend to, to see if my handiwork helped.
As for working one some of the same article as the blocked users, all I can say is that, in November and December I was fighting with all three blocked users Szhaider, nadirali and Unre4L—the Talk:india and Talk:pakistan pages are littered with evidence of our battles. However, somewhere in the battling, I also became aware of a kind of higher level bias being introduced by Indian editors (who are not only more numerous than their Pakistani counterparts, but also more WP savvy and can quote you chapter and verse). Unfortunately, the Pakistani editors seem to be stuck on fighting over Urdu vs. Hindi script etc (the nickel and dime edit wars that get them into trouble). My goal is simply to get bias out where I see it. It is really an accident that I ended up in this India-Pakistan ideological battle; some other twist of fate could have taken me to some other battle ground and our paths would never have crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Sindhi Fellow

Hello Sindhi Fellow

add this tag

سنڌي सिन्धी
This user is Sindhi

Khalidkhoso 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)




[edit] Your edits (and insults) on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

I would appreciate it if you didnt refer to certain people as "Blocked POV Pushers". The Edit is supported by a logical argument, unlike yours, and an admin will be consulted if you keep up the insults and unsourced edits.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Genocide Denier?. I believe I wrote you the equivalent of a book explaining that I didnt deny any genocides. Please dont insult me like this. And talking about colourful insults, I am sure you havent forgotten those insults you threw at me (and barely got a warning for).
As for your explanation of British India, let me explain. The full name of British India has to be mentioned so it doesnt cause any confusion with what is now India.
Similar to the Roman Empire. I am sure they didnt call it "Roman Empire" back in the day, however the term is used to stop confusion.
Once again, I will forgive you for your constant insults, and would appreciate it, if you stopped throwing around the accusations.
Thank you
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)