User talk:Punekar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punekar, you need to supply some references for your entry in the Zakir Naik article. If this was such an infamous quote, surely it should be referenced in the English-language Indian press. Please give us a link, or just a verifiable quote from an Indian newspaper or magazine. Zora 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, not every Big Fight program is referenced in the English language newspapers. However, if you tune into Peace TV, you can see a direct broadcast of Naik speech on this regard. The recording was broadcast just yesterday March 28 2006 (1330 GMT).

Here are the details Satellite: PAS-10, Transponder 2C

Satellite Position: 68.5 degrees East

Frequency: 3783.25, FEC: 2/3

Symbol Rate: 3250

Polarization: Horizontal

Punekar, I live in HONOLULU, and I don't have a satellite dish. Furthermore, a TV broadcast, unless it is archived somewhere, is not going to be available to people checking this article two years from now. Zora 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
And I live in Tokyo in Japan. Is it your claim that if it not on the Internet, it is not true?

If it's not in a version that can be found years afterwards -- either on the net or in a hard-copy newspaper morgue -- then it is not verifiable. I suspect that you're right, but that's not verifiability. Zora 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Recordings of his speeches can be procured by payment - Peace TV charges some nominal amount for this service. Also, just because a link on the net exists today is no guarantee of it's existence in the future. The newspaper archive (hard copy) is the only other source, other than a recording like the one I mention that is verifiable.

Contents

[edit] Indian Muslim versus muslim Indian

Punekar, Muslim is capped in English. Also, Indian Muslim is the preferred order of the adjectives, not Muslim Indian. I can't explain why, but "Muslim Indian" just sounds funny. Zora 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, my thinking around this was that they are Indians who happen to be muslim, because people like Javed Akhtar have clearly placed their nation above the so-called ummah. So Indian is their primary identity and being muslim is an adjective. It's like saying "beautiful Zora" versus "Zora-named Beauty". :D Make sense? -Suresh 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Punekar, it's dumb, but people usually reply on the other person's talk page. Anyway -- we say American Buddhist (for people like me), American Christian, American Muslim ... It is just the way we talk. No implications for primary loyalties. It doesn't need to make sense, it's language. Zora 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you edit instead of revert?

Punekar, when Monotheist/Wallah96/anonIP reverts the article to the Nakir-puffing version, why do you start editing it instead of reverting? Do you know how to revert? Just go to the diff or the history, click on the previous version you want to restore, then click "edit this page" and save it. It is good to label it as a revert, rv, so that you can keep track of how many you've done. Zora 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Zora. I will take your advice. --Suresh 09:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

suresh or punekar or a hindu indian or indian hindu, Just because u r jealous of Zakir Naik and his truth u cant revert it mate this is his biography and not his critism or advertisement page be honest. and as u seems to watch his debates u know how effective he is and how he is getting more hindus to the true path, alhamdulilah. be patience and look for truth and u will find him. May Allah show u the right path Mak82hyd 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's a rabble rouser, Mak82. You may be in love with him, but you may not use Wikipedia to propagate that. I'm an athiest, if that makes you happy.
thats what u think punnekkar, Quran says Allah(swt) has sealed few peoples heart and they will never get the true message because they dont want to hear it and u r one of them. no surprise, u hater of naik and muslims. the truth is revealed and if u dont believe u will go to hell not me. so I dont care if u r atheist ot hindu its same..lol and let me tell u cant use wikipedia for spreading hate .. got it? -- mak82hyd
Mak82Hyd - I understand you are upset that not everyone shares your enthusiasm about Naik. You must channel your thoughts in a more positive manner especially if you seek to remain on the Wikipedia editing community. Your last comment is in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - and this is reason enough to nominate someone to be blocked. What I would like is for you to very calmly sit down and list out your issues with the current version of the page on the discussion page. From my experience, I can tell you that ultimately Wikipedia goes with a consensus that accomodates the subject and all views around it. Look at pages on other evangelists from other faiths such as Baba Ramdev or Jerry Falwell as a reference.

[edit] Anonymous vandals - any way to deal with them?

Is there any way to stop users like Mak82hyd who vandalize pages without discussion, and also sometimes dont login to hide their identity? Is there any end to this, I mean? I'm experiencing the same online Jihad on Ali Sina as you are on Zakir Naik, where this user (and others like him will continue to come) continues to delete content without discussion or consensus. I think its foolish of Wikipedia to not have any strict mechanism to deal with this. What can we do, besides semi-protection requests? I've made a request for protection for Ali Sina. The article was better left protected, where it was safe from online terrorists. --Matt57 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wearing them down with perseverance and calling for page protection are the only things I can think of at this point. I'll be helping out on the Ali Sina page once I read up more on him. Online jihadis must be combated, else we will have horrible POV articles all over the place. --Punekar 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well thats ridiculous. Article 'terrorism' should be easier to deal with. I think its stupid of Wikipedia to allow this situation to persist, where a new user keeps reverting to their changes without discussion. This is uncivil behavior. They should be warned for this and ultimately be banned. I'm discussing this Fayssal here. If this is allowed to happen, I mean- can you see how easy it is for a POV editor to come along and revert to their own undiscussed unapproved version 20 times? There should be a policy to deal with this. --Matt57 14:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZAKIR NAIK

Punekar, I agree Bilal philips article needs a cleanup. please help me in this matter and write an paragrahp from his views which is shared by many others. what i am saying is more ocncentration has been set up on his views but dont u agree we should write somebody good and bad in his biographic article then just views or negative. please revise bilal philips section and rewrite it but please try to cover all the information in it. like his tours, no. of lectures etc. I am writing a dissertation so i dont get much time but ill appreciate if u can help me in this regard as we can make this article more NPOV, Thanks. Mak82hyd 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I offered you a precis of the information on the discussion page. You did not respond. If you do not have time, I suggest you wait until you have referenciable NPOV information to add to it. Stop the blind reverts. --Punekar (プネカル) 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out for Naik Article. please see discussion for few of my points. Mak82hyd 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)