User talk:Hornplease

Archives
	1 2 3 4

Politicians CFD

The only consensus was that the category stays, meaning there were no caveats like the later CFD's. It was an overwhelming keep. Only two users besides you voted delete; One was made by a troll, the other delete was from a user that thought people like lalu prasad, Nehru, and paswan should be added (none of whom are Hindu, especially not Nehru.Said users vote was an invalid reason to delete. No religion based politician cats have that caveat of "self identifying" on them.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP under categorisation. Also note that the delete vote by a 'troll' may have made valid arguments. Finally, read up on what consensus means in deletion debates. Hornplease 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(12/3/1) is strong consensus to keep. The keep votes were unconditional as well. BLP would have figured at least into the scope of the category, and by the closing admin, meaning its already been taken care of. Your interpretation of how the overwhelming consensus to keep was made is irrelevant.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it is OR to twist consensus and BLP to your uses, and somehow try to push your interpretation of BLP as law. Note: I actually dont care what you think is acceptable, since consensus is totally against you, and Akash (the only person who may have agreed with you) changed his vote.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from wp:blp under categorisation, it is required that :

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

As you can see, this isnt OR, or my interpretation. It's just policy. Find a fight you can win. Hornplease 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In India, politics and religion go hand in hand. Also, the fact that he is a Maharaja may come into play, and verification is already found on the talk page due to his relations with Vasundhara Raje and his own coronation. I guess you assumed I didnt read WP:BLP. Congrats to losing the war. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but scope of the cat says "born as Hindus". Since he had a Hindu coronation (Nawabs dont have Hindu ceremonies), its obvious he was born a Hindu. Unless you find proof to the contrrary (meaning he converted to Islam, Xtianity, etc), he still is by law a Hindu. Therefore, he fits the guidelines of the cat. I think you are forgetting also which family he belongs to, that makes a difference. As a politician in Madhya Pradesh, religion based politics is the rule, with people like Uma Bharti and Arjun Singh using religion to get votes. In this environment, religion is notable. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Bakht, Naqvi, and Hussain (Shahnawaz) were added by me to the Muslim cat, not the Hindu one.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement that he had a BJP relative as proof of his Hinduism. I think that he uses his family to get votes not his religion. (He is in the Congress, after all. Family, not religion, get it?) Be that as it may, my only point here is that wp:blp is stringent about it. The cat was written for anyone 'born Hindus', but that is insufficient per wp:blp, which was made policy after the cat was written. I have left a note for Aksi to that effect, as I do not want to change it unilaterally. WP:Bold is all very well, but I'm not that bold. Hornplease 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify: I do not doubt that the Scindia family is traditionally Hindu. I say we have no citations about how Madhavrao Scindia brought up his family in particular. We need that in order to add this individual to the cat, even as it stands now.

Actually I was issued defwarn for some other article (ambedkar i think) before I created the cat, meaning this came after BLP. Look at the scope for Category:Muslim politicians , Category:Sikh politicians, Category:Jewish politicians (Actually it doesnt even have a scope) and the like. None have scopes as defined as the Hindu cat. Shaukat Aziz has nothing on there defining his religion (except the muslim politicians cat). However Madhvraoji raised his kids, Jyotiraditya had a Hindu coronation, which means he was born Hindu, which means he stays in the cat. Also, Madhvrao Scindia had a hindu death ceremony [1] and the handing over of the pugri was done at the hanuman mandir in a Hindu ceremony, meaning he was by law a Hindu as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation warning

Please don't defame biographies of living people. Compare this with Robert Spencer, which also calls someone researcher in the intro. The intro is not the place to place defamations like this. --Bondego 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you know what defamation is precisely. I presume you refer to this edit [2]. It was an attempt at a compromise between you and twohorned. I see no reason why it is defamatory, Please read WP:BLP. Twohorned objected that Dr. Elst was not part of a professional outfit or a research team or a department, you pointed out that research does not require such a setup, I attempted to split the difference. This is not defamatory. Please do watch your words. Hornplease 22:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur has negative connotations. Don't use negative connations without sources, esp. in the intro. It is also very pov, and the word cannot be properly defined. So don't use it. "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Articles like Robert Spencer also use researcher in the intro, which is comparable. --Bondego 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so. convince the person you're in an edit war with, not me. I definitely dont think 'amateur' has negative connotations. On the contrary, its an accurate description of someone who doesnt do historical research for a living. (We're amateurs, you know.) Hornplease 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strange statement

Hello Hornplease. As you probably know, I try to maintain the acceptable minimum of honesty and impartiality on the Koenraad_Elst page, which is periodically vandalized by young hindutva supporters. User Bakaman has put quite a strange assertion about you in the talk page [3] which sounds very much like defamation to me (although I don't really understand what he means). Just for info. Take care. TwoHorned 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely citing a coincidence that both your name have the word "horn".Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian nationalism

Take a look into the article. I edited it extensively to meet the collective demands of editors involved. Freedom skies 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Hello, you are involved in a request for arbitration. Please see this case. TerryJ-Ho 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You seem to have a significant editing history with Subhash bose/Netaji, more so than I. Would you mind including his disruptive edits as well on the arbitration case? They are relevant as User:Shiva's Trident is still currently banned, so you can assume that the sockpuppetry is true. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think all users involved in the arbitration are being examined, not just Hkelkar. You can add any evidence you feel is relevant. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Question

As a possible arbitrator for the Clash of Civilisations that is the RfArb on HKelkar, I wonder if I could ask a question: when a RfArb has been opened on a particular user, are the findings of fact going to focus on that user alone, or on all users cited by ArbComm as parties to the dispute? I ask because I have avoided, for purposes of sparing myself considerable aggravation, discussing my interactions with another user. However, if the ArbComm will be passing out some form of judgment on all involved, as has been suggested to me [4] I would not be able to square it with my conscience if I did not make an effort to at least begin to spell out some of the damage done by the others involved. Thank you for your time, and I apologise on behalf of all India-related editors for the degree of work that this arbitration will involve. We should have stamped this out earlier. I do hope that some good will come of it now. Hornplease 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is somewhat expandable, but we would not want to overdo it. You may note that I am proposing year long bans for those who feel they have the license to vigorously attack other cultures. At this point I have not considered your behavior. Fred Bauder 14:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel Bakasuprman is a major problem, please file a request for arbitration regarding him. Fred Bauder 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Martino /Renato Raffaele Martino

I see you have asked to move "Renato Cardinal Martino" to "Renato Martino". Would "Renato Raffaele Martino", his full name and the name under which he appears in List of cardinals, be better? I leave it entirely to you to decide. Lima 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Sikhs and Jains in India

There is no need for a citation. Come to India, and witness on your own. There is no need to provide a URL/citation for each and every reference as some facts are very well known (like Eiffel tower is in Paris). 'Social-Fabric' means relationships between various communities--the fabric is the same, but at various parts there are different designs.IAF

I don't find "incivil friend" anywhere in the Hkelkar arbitration

After my last involvement in an Arbcom case, where giving evidence against a nationalist clique exposed me to several months of mudslinging, vicious attacks, and attempts to get me punished, I'm reluctant to ever get involved in an Arbcom case again. Let the damn WP go down in flames if that's the way things work here.

I couldn't find the phrase "incivil friend" anywhere in the proceedings. Am I indeed involved? Please give me a better pointer to the place where I'm mentioned, so that I can tell whether or not I'm going to have to defend myself. Again. Zora 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff[5]. I fancy a defence will not be necessary, and apologise again for mentioning you if you have such bad memories of ArbComm. I am not sanguine myself, but you must agree that an effort must be made. Hornplease 06:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I don't think I have to defend myself against Barksuprman. The edits that he's touting as proof of my perfidy seem to establish his, I think.

Wikipedia has a bad bad bad system (or lack of system) for managing conflicts between editors. I'm not sure that an effort must be made, or that it will do any good. WP will eventually be superseded by a similar project that manages conflicts better. I don't think Citizendium will be the successful project, but we may learn something from it.

My usual method of dealing with messes is to imagine the ideal system and then try to figure out the steps necessary to get there from here. I don't know what the ideal system might be. A karma-based system, like Slashdot or Everything2? Two kinds of karma, knowledge and "plays well with others"? Outside credentials don't matter, but editors can establish credentials HERE? Brainstorming, anyone? But I don't see TPTB (the powers that be) welcoming any major changes. Amazing that we can be so young, as a project, and so set in our ways. Zora 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Westwood

Have a look at the efect of your reversion to the above! Pleas be a little more careful when rving. Thanks Escaper7 12:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Hornplease, sorry for replying after so much time. I still don't think that a citation is needed. I mean I have seen Jains celebrating and worshipping Hindu gods, Sikhs and Hindus go to each others' places of worship, and most of all Sikhs, Jains and Hindus have the same customs and intermarry very often without thought. Actually all this was the reason of the observation of the Supreme Court. IAF

Indian politicians

Hello Hornplease, Thanks for considering me for the changes on the pages. But I am right now little busy in the studies due to my examinations those are going to be getting over tomorrow. Then I will try to remove unsourced and unverified edits followed by making some sourced edits on the articles. Sorry for the delay. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

may I interest you in Amartya Sen?

Hi Hornplease! As an academically-inclined Wikipedia enthusiast, you may enjoy an brand new interview with Amartya Sen on his recent book "Identity and Violence" on Thoughtcast. There's also an interview on Virgil's Georgics which may interest you... I'm Jenny Attiyeh, and a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I've been recently trying to figure out how to flesh out the Thoughtcast article with little success -- perhaps you would be willing to assist? (I live across the river from you.) I think I've figured out how to set up a username (jenattiyeh) so people can e-mail me. But the template and notability requests have left me in knots! Thanks very much -- Jenny Attiyeh

Request for arbitration

Thanks, Hornplease. I will try to add something when I have had a chance to read through all the voluminous stuff. Some people don't know how to be concise. Itsmejudith 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more useful if I contributed to the evidence page or to the workshop? I have some diffs that could go in the evidence. Itsmejudith 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in...

Hi Hornplease... please check in on the ThoughtCast article for me, and let me know if there's anything else I ought to do to wikify it. I am not sure how to create a single line in between my sections, rather than a double line! Also, I am wondering how to get the title of the article to say ThoughtCast with a capital c rather than lowercase?? That level of editing escapes me, especially as I didn't create the article to start with! Thanks again for your help on this. Jen

Under attack?

That's an interesting statement. Wikipedia is not a battleground, remember? [6]Hkelkar 12:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WP isnt, but it looks to me like your RfArb is, a little. Hornplease 12:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Well hell. I sent you a coded message asking you to email me and placed it on a page I know would be on your watchlist. But you didn't get it, so whatever.

I was trying to tell you some things about your situation that I thought might help you. I didn't want to blow your cover or mine, but it just didn't work out.

It's all immaterial now because I've emailed someone who has the power to bring the hammer down on this. In case you haven't noticed, this thing extends far beyond your experience. If you're interested, take a look at some of the talk pages of people involved.

Just a quick walk down the trail of interactions reveals a lot. So do user contributions and page histories. The RFAR isn't going to cover it. I've spent two days investigating, and dozens of articles are involved, at the very least.

There are also at least four admins I've seen who are either directly or tacitly participating, if not more. I submit that it's useless to plead your case at this point. If you should decide to investigate on your own, remember that the date stamp on these activities is very important as well.

I simply dont know why you don't have your account email enabled. You could get a web-based email address that reveals nothing about you. If you had such an account attached, Myself and some other people would have offered you support long before this.

In any case, don't worry. It's all out there, thanks to Wikipedia itself. We need help, and I've asked for it. Please be patient, though I understand that's difficult. If we don't get help soon, it's only because people are very busy in real life. But help WILL come, because those folks who have a vested interest in preserving Wikipedia for ALL Wikipedians are being forced to act by the very people involved in this.

If you want details, for heavens sake email me. NinaEliza 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

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

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109^Talk 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of India

Bakasuprman has removed a reference on the grounds that it's Pakistani, and no on wants to read Pakistani books. Do you have the energy to comment? Zora 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Aiyar

Hi you have removed the bit about Sainik farm.Certainly it is an illegal colony and appears in his lok sabha entry,Regards(Vr 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Partition_of_India#Causes_of_Partition

Hi Hornplease, I have some questions waiting for you where I hope to settle the futile arguments that are occuring. Please provide your opinion. Thank you Gizza^Chat ^© 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear Hornplease

I think I'm close to leaving Wikipedia, as I indicated in the famous ArbCom case we know. I'm on the verge of finishing a few things in the french pages, then I will sign off. I just wanted to say you good bye, and to thank you for your interventions, both in the case and also about Koenraad Elst, which is the topic I mainly contributed to in the English Wikipedia. I guess that, like me, you've got not so much good time with all the events that happened around, but I wanted to tell you that I appreciated your interventions and the intellectual honesty you still try to achieve in the Koenraad Elst article.

I see that you are still following the discussion in the talk page there. I give up but I think that all that Zydenbos has said about Elst is perfectly trustable and correct, and, anyway, the link appears in the "link section" of the article. If one day Zydenbos writes the same in a more "official" publication, I will mention it in the article directly.

In fact, what I can tell without a doubt is that Koenraad Elst is an extremely suspect writer, and not only for the political reasons explained in the Zydenbos page, but mainly for all his intellectual approach to Hinduism and India's history. The links given by Bondego about some criticisms placed at Elst (and Elst's counter responses) are in fact irrelevant, just as irrelevant as can be S. Devi w.r.t. Hinduism. If you have some time, I hope you'll find some interest to Rene Guenon's Introduction to the study of Hindu Doctrines (and also to other books by that author) which place you on the right intellectual setting for understanding metaphysics. It is worth reading.

That's it. I would like to thank you again, and to wish good time in Wikipedia and in your life for the years to come.

With warm regards,

TwoHorned 20:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the energy and effort Hornplease displayed, I think Hornplease deserves this ! TwoHorned 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello User:Hornplease, just want to introduce myself. I've seen that you seem to do some really good work on wiki. I'm also interested in some of your areas, especially South Asian topics and wanted to help promote a fairer more unbiased work on these different articles. I was hoping you wouldn't mind me coming to you with some questions sometimes as I am not as familiar with all of wiki. Have a good day and keep up the good work--Kathanar 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Hornplease, thank you for the welcome, I might need your advice soon. I am observing I think vandalism over at Indian American politics section. I'll be back in touch.--Kathanar 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Hornplease, could you look at this [[7]] and give me your opinion or help on this matter. There is a move to delete a category I created for religious supremacists. Thanks --Kathanar 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

A book on Hindutva forces misrepresenting history isn't the best book to show to a person who already has the impression that Indians are stealing Pakistan's history, it will push the two parties involved (Indians and Pakistanis) a lot further apart. I stand by my comments, it wasn't prudent for fowler to show him extracts from that book. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, bad faith was a bit of a heavy statement to use. By the way, my new signature isn't working, could you take a look at User:Nobleeagle/Sig and try and see the problem: Signing gets me this:

NOBLEEAGLE <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki> <nowiki>[C]</nowiki> 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant to be this: — NOBLEEAGLE ^[TALK] [C]

Don't worry, I fixed it. — NOBLEEAGLE ^[TALK] [C] 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. I was going to copyedit your recent and very informative addition here to match the other citations in form, but then realized you cited a page but no edition (which makes the citation unverifiable). Could you please either add the edition data (publisher, date) to the article or leave a note on my talk page indicating it? Thank you. Dahn 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I understood correctly, you wish to revisit that article and add more to it - I suppose this is from the same book. My main concern was to apply a single format to all references - since I edited the article, I stuck with the system of references I find most comfortable (book titles at the bottom, shortened citations as "author, page" in "Notes"), but we could just as well change it if you have any objection; however, I think that whatever format we use, we should be consistent throughout the article. That is to say, I will change the citation to the format currently used, and you are free to change it throughout the article or you can ask me to do it. Either way, yours was a very interesting addition.

I originally bumped into Nasi while editing on a related subject involving, of all places, Romania. I could provide citations for his activities in relation to Moldavia, but then noticed that the article was unreferenced (and my additions appeared over-detailed in comparison), so I just did some research into what was available on the net, and added some stuff. Overall, there is too little I know about about the man, so I would definitely encourage you to add more detail wherever in the article you see suited. Cheers, Dahn 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squatting MOPs

I fully agree with you. That's why I moved the factoid to the "personal life" section as a matter-of-fact statement of where he lives. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan Migration

I'm sure he had a good reason, which was precisely why I asked. I know that there has been some conflict at that article - the reason I have it watchlisted is because of a particular user that had been creating POV redirects and other nonsense. That's actually why I was suprised that their wasn't further explanation in the edit summary or a direction to the talk page. To someone unfamiliar with the topic, like myself, it just looks like a sourced paragraph, since I'm not familiar with who's fringe in that particular field. Natalie 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temp Page

The only way that this can work is if solid contributors like yourself help it work, Horn. You have seen how contentious the back and forth is in the Discussion area. Nothing is getting done and people are just getting mad at each other. By focusing the energies of the two groups interested in each area, we get twice as much done, instead of the tug of war we have now. I have asked Mar and Niko to put together a 2-sentence summary of the sections to be focused on in the Temp Page, so that somethin remains in the article until the Temp Page is reintegrated in a couple of weeks. Help me out, please.Arcayne 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how to contact you?

Hi, Is there a way to contact you? I see that it wouldn't be reasonable to reveal your email address here, amidst the animosity prevalent. Can you please send an email message to {zalimjadir} at gmail.com (leaving out the braces)? Systemic rant 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 Article

You are going to find that being polite with me will garner you much more assistance than would my ire. Please endavor to be more civil.Arcayne 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that in each of your references of my remarks, they were not directed at any one person. I commented because your were. And no, I don't expect the film to be as rosy as that of a bad children's flick, but I do expect people to roll up their sleeves and actually doa little research. We have wasted over a week arguing about two reviews - two. At Rotten Tomatoes, there are gathered at least two dozen articles. In order to avoid the POV nonsense that will cripple the article's ability to reach GA and FA status (as that is what we ar aiming for, after all), we need to start utilizing more than just the sentiments of a minority or reviewers. I ask you to try and accept that, for a majority of the English wiki, the concerns of the Iranian cultural brigade is not going to really matter. Not that we are insensitive to your concerns, but rather that they carry less weight here than they would in, say, the Iranian wiki (if there is such a thing). Arcayne 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am going to ask you to be a tad more civil than you are now. Suggestin that I don't know my way around Wikipedia is pretty insulting, and not really conducive to working politely together. Please, don't do it again.

As well, rather than remind me of RS, perhaps you might endeavor to actually quote in the article some of the sources you allude to. Instead, we keep hearing about the Slate interview. I am not saying that it doesn't bear mentioning. I'm not even suggesting that were we to find a great many sources that say otherwise that we should ignore ones that point solely to the cultural insensitivities, we should not mention it. I am suggesting that these other sources should be cited, so as to avoid the appearance of wearing blinders. Lastly, you misunderstood my point about the English-language wiki. We aren't supposed to focus solely on Iranian news sources, and yet we have. I am not going to dwell on that. Hopefully, this will correct itself. Please, do not ever accuse me of cultural bias ever again. You don't know me, and you quite clearly have no idea what sorts of bias I do or do not have. Let's not talk about this anymore. Arcayne 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done now? Is it out of your system? I certainly hope so, as I considered the conversation closed after my response to your last email. I archived my talk page with that understanding. Had I simply blanked my page, that would have been rude. Instead I archived it, because even the most inane conversations wherein the other person repeats back to me word for word (as if I somehow cannot remember) what I said teaches me something. That you chose to respond afterward, to have some sort of last word on the subject, kinda teaches quite clearly that this ego-driven and relatively uncivil behavior isn't really something I care to engage with. Please do not respond to my Talk Page any more; you have nothing to say that I find necessary to hear. I certainly hope I am being clear this time. I wouldn't want you to misinterpret or misunderstand me yet again. Arcayne 09:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Karunanidhi Article

I appreciate your efforts to remove POV statements from Karunanidhi article in both Achievements and Controversies section. You have removed statements regarding Selling SUN TV stakes as Original Research.(Synthesis). These reports of comparing Karunanidhi selling price and actual share IPO price appeared in many Indian newspapers, columns etc. For sample you can see here. I can give many more citations if required. I am reinserting those statements. I suggest you can modify statements in line with encyclopedic standards if required instead of removing paragraph completely. --Indianstar 06:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosser

Isn't Yvette Rosser notable? Birdsmight 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme elaborate. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just sayin' that Rosser and Bhatnagar are hardly "random people". Rosser is a notable academic in such areas (politics I guess) and Bhatnagar is a notable personality (as the chief editor of a important periodical). Dunno much abt this Sundaram chappie so a removal of his opinion might be in order. What do you think? Birdsmight 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "partisan" necessarily mean unreliable as far as Rosser is concerned? I don't see anything in BLP that bans her opinions from the Bidwal page, particularly given the fact that the material is a reproduction of documentation from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin (and so has some academic standing). As far as the Michael Moore comparison and your "polemical==inadmissible claim", websites like http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/ are, by construction, polemical. Yet it is referenced as a criticism of Moore.

Partisan groups are routinely quoted as criticisms of people, for instance,Bernard Goldberg's criticism of Michael Moore in Michael_Moore_controversies#Criticisms_by_conservative_authors (Fox News would certainly count as "partisan" in that case).What about this [8]? Partisan? Perhaps. But certainly notable given that they are the one Bidwai targets for his attacks on Hindus. These are the best quotable criticisms of Bidwai, and some criticism obviously belongs in his page, given his inherently inflammatory remarks against Hindus. Birdsmight 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the issue is a bit more complicated than literal adherence to wp policies. the issues here are as follows:

Bidwai has made some heavily incendiary remarks against Hindus, targeted at Hindus in a broad sense, that have encouraged violence against Hindus and encouraged discrimination against Hindus. These remarks border on hate speech. That much is clear
Those remarks have provoked a response from certain parties who have been bold enough not to be intimidated by Marxist threats and intimidation tactics
For the sake of balance in the article, those responses need to be stated on the grounds of quotability and notability. Since Rosser has academic qualifications her criticism is certainly notable enough for mention.
Rosser does not make ad-hominem attacks against Bidwai, so libel issues don't apply. She is not defaming him, merely criticizing his position.We can talk about Bhatnagar separately (he is, in fact,a prolific contributor to multiple periodicals, and heads io, which is more than an "online publication").Birdsmight 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wrt your statement "If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can". In an ersatz-democracy like India, that is not the case. Birdsmight 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Bhatnagar is concerned. He had a discussion with Bidwai "I accosted Praful Bidwai also who had implied that all the alleged social and economic disasters in India are because of Hindutva and Hindu BJP-led governments. He first tried to evade, run away and ignore but, when squarely confronted, admitted that he did not blame BJP for all the ills, the Congress party was also guilty." so that interaction makes it notable (it's certainly not inherently disparaging to the man so there is no libel here). Perhaps it needs to be reworded a bit, but certainly not removed.Birdsmight 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not being violated here as there is no defamation of character. Birdsmight 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid then that we are at an impasse, since I maintain that Rosser does not violate BLP, although Sundaram and Bhatnagar might. There are two options. Noticeboard or mediation. Which do you want to do first? I do not think I am under any obligation to "make my case" to you as such, only to an accredited wikipedia committee, with whom I am prepared to argue my case.Birdsmight 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Keegan Casey

On 22 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Keegan Casey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unseemly template

Horn, The Communism in India template (an ugly-looking one) is really improper in most of the places. For example, see EMS. The template has several fringe organisations, highly irrelevant in the case of the article. Then the Naxalbari movement was something antagonistic to the party EMS led. In fact the Naxalite organisations formerly used to call CPI(M) a social fascist organisation. Such antagonistic elements whose views have nothing in common shouldn't be brought under an umbrella template. What do you think of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vidhrohi (talk • contribs) 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anti-Hinduism

Thanks for working out imbalances and undue weight from that article. Your edits look good so you can probably expect my support when the inevitable disagreement arrives. The Behnam 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Narendra Modi an infallible figure

Have a look at the pace with legtimate criticism of Modi is being removed when it has been clearly pointed out in Indian media that the Gujarat government has acceded that there have been fake encounters of Muslims claiming they were headed to assasinate Modi and have a look here [9] congratulating each other.

[10] The fake encounter issue has been raked in Gujarat assembly and even some BJP members have asked for full scale enquiries into the doings of Narendra Das Manohardas Modi.

WP does not restrict edits by IPs so why [Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington]] has run a tirade against unknown IP edits on Naranda Modi even though the POV is supported by newspapers and link on TOI provided 125.23.99.152 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300

I beg to differ. An agnostic approach does not emphasise any historicity upon the film, it merely avoids the use of labels prone to personal interpretations, such as "fictional account of". In case you didn't notice, the alternative view to "fictional account" is to leave it blank, nobody suggests to coin it a "historical account" or anything like that. Don't you think that an agnostic approach is the most neutral strategy to follow? Miskin 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gujral.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gujral.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism

Hi, this article that you tagged recently was originally created by the banned Hindutvaadi troll User:Maleabroad, which explains the unverified claims scattered throughout the article. In one sense the topic is valid since the Avesta and the Vedas, the texts which modern Hinduism evolved from share many similarities. But I wonder whether the page will look much different from Proto-Indo-Iranian religion once it is cleaned up. What are your thoughts? Gizza^Chat ^© 22:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd seen that article somewhere, and was planning to look for it. You're right, it might be the case that we have a good case for redirection here; perhaps DBachmann might want to weigh in, given that this is close to his area of expertise? I'll let him know. Hornplease 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Requests for arbitration: Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom

I am informing you of this request for arbitration, initially filed by User talk:Notmyrealname, since you are an "interested party" who contributed a comment in the Request for comment on Talk:Lewis Libby; I have modified the heading to focus on the articles in dispute as opposed to on a contributor and explained that there. Please go to the link and indicate that you confirm having received this message. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Thanks for the information, Hornplease. *scratching head, trying to remember where I've run into you, because I think we have too...* :) – Riana ^ऋ 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]