User talk:TerryJ-Ho/Archive 1

Calling innocent women and children Hindu zealots isn't NPOV.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have referred many media except of course the media who are supporters of the Hindutva ideas and most referred to the crowd that fell the Babri mosque as Hindu Zealots, Hindu fundamentalists or Hindu Nationalist.

TerryJ-Ho 23:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Zealots? Whats the CPIM or IMC? Those are not balanced sources. Anybody that calls them women and children is now Hindutva? Looking at your history of edits, and the pages on your userpage, the ONLY sources you find acceptable are anti-Hindu sources. Of course, since I am trying to work under Bcorr's guidelines, I won't voice my opinion on the actual page but consider this a response to the sad state of the article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read these articles from TIME and BBC sp. Pic caption- they refer to the Hindu zealots felling the Babri Mosque.TerryJ-Ho 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Onlinevolunteers.org is about as NPOV as Hindu Unity. As far as wiki is concerned, sites like those are merely propaganda megaphones.Bakaman _Bakatalk

In response 1992. 2002. Women and children on a train are not zealots. 1992 was the demolition of the disputed structure. 2002 was the backlash to the attack on the Sabarmati. There were no Hindu zealots on the train.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The "zealots" referred to Hindus that razed the Babri Mosque, not the Hindus on the train. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hindus that took down the disputed structure took 10 years to come back by train? 1992-2002. TerryJHo wishes to describe the train ones as zealots also.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Though they could very appropriately be mentioned as zealots (wasn't it their zeal to go to Ayodhya - to demand a temple be built on the mosque site)- I have not refered those who died in the train incident as zealots in the Wikipedia text,So why are you citing something that I have not mentioned in the article.

TerryJ-Ho

Hello TerryJ-Ho. I have access to millions of older news articles from various databases. If you want, I can email you some reliable articles from the New York Times regarding the 2002 Gujarat violence, and if you have a request for other reliable sources, I can probably get you those too. Just email me. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhaisaab, Thanks, I have a long list of articles too..I am asking for acceptable sources from Baka, the thing is while working with other groups on the previous article.I have this problem of people attacking each and every source as Anti Hindu.So may be those people could cite sources that they will agree with - they attacked Amnesty,HRW,US government reports,reports from NHRC,other humanrights teams that visited Gujarat.They seemed to be happy with a particular site called as Bharatvani that has a Pro-BJP,RSS panel.I will email you though to be able to get more data on this topic.

TerryJ-Ho 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bharatvani is run by a scholar named Koenraad Elst who has a degree in Indian culture. He is a reputable source. HRW is biased as are any human rights groups that condemn Godhra but don't condemn the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir or the attacks against minorities in Pakistan. Those are bigger issues than one riot in which a large number of Hindus were killed also. When Netaji comes back he will probably have some good sources, seeing as how he spends most of his time on this article (and other articles similar to this) while I prefer to work on Wikiproject:Bengal with Ragib, and therefore have less time to check on the POV.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The dynamics of Kashmir problem are different being a problem with two different countries while Gujarat is an internal problem of India.TerryJ-Ho

Really. I believe the Muslim terrorists who blew up the train received support from the ISI. And there are no Kashmiri Pandits in PoK, so both are India's problems, one large scale (Pandit massacre and genocide) the other a measly communal riot.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who put the coach on fire were no terrorists, they were just responding to the provocations and it was a spontaneous outbreak of emotions.There is hardly any need for ISI to help, India being a big country has many resources specially the traitors in the army.TerryJ-Ho

Really, not terrorists? Burning innocent women and children isn't terrorism but the victors of the communal riots are perpetrators of a genocide. What kind of twisted logic is this?Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No , They were just responding to the heat of the moment ..it is action and reaction.Kar Sevaks shouted slogans and misbehaved at the railway stations,so the result and what happened after that in the whole of Gujarat justified that TerryJ-Ho 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself. So some people singing "Jai Sri Ram" naturally made the Muslims burn down a train which naturally led to the riots, which naturally led to the Mulsims getting owned in the riots. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally, people would voice their concerns (perhaps in court) but of course secular people get treated in a special way right?Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Modi spoke of Action and reaction - The same logic appliesTerryJ-Ho 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The riots were merely a Hindu reaction, with no gov't intervention (present or even needed). Nice to see we agree on something.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving that there was no gov't intervention (present or even needed)when India is a signatory to UN conventions guranteeing life and property of all its citizenTerryJ-Ho

Jehadis don't count anymore than they would at Gitmo.Netaji 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation

Please refrain from insulting brilliant and insightful scholar Daniel Pipes in my talk page here. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I will report you if you continue. Have a nice day.Netaji 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not a violation of WP:BLP since that policy only pertains to articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, WP:BLP applies to articles, talk pages, categories, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More character assassination

Refrain from inserting original research that is irrelevant to the Babri Mosque article. Plus, the section on Pipes you inserted is tantamount to a character assassination of well-respected and US government appointed political scholar Daniel Pipes. Further perpetration of such a deed is grounds for reporting.Netaji 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting as legal??TerryJ-Ho

Is Wikipedia a US government property and you their lawyer? I have taken cue from you .In fact, I have been everyone as Anti-Hindu.

I have to say that your edit [1] is not at all NPOV as this is not the place to discuss Pipes. If a reference to his comments biases the article, it is best to discuss and remove his comment. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was but not unlike the edits by another user who contributes on these pages.I can see a number of his articles where a criticism chapter enters an otherwise normal text.Though there is hardly any need to discuss, the Wikipedia article itself on Pipes mentions the number of occassions he has been referred to as Anti Muslim.This is another effort at weasling.TerryJ-Ho 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well just put a link to Pipes or call him a neocon. That way there is no POV or weasel words, or defamation.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a view from someone who has never been critical of Israel.His comments are highly critical of Muslims in general and he is no historian or scholar on South Asia or archaeology.TerryJ-Ho 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Israel have to do with this? Fact is, Pipes is a scholar and he wrote about this. Bear in mind that many muslims regard India as part of the "Greater Middle East" and so Pipes, a middle east scholar, was naturally interested in the Islamism in India.Netaji 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing his quotes, why not find something to back up your edit of the Muslim side on the "proof" part of the issue. I am keeping the senttence until you find proof that the disputed structure was not a temple at some point in time before the Hindu holocaust. Of course the Hindu sides proof is nearly irrefutable, making it a hard look.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If this issue could be settled on my and your proofs.We would not have been wasting our time on this article.What proofs you have of someone born 1.3 Million years ago (when Rama was said to be born)when the first Homo Sapiens specimen made appearance only around 1,35,000 BC.It is all about fantacising.TerryJ-Ho 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Christians say that the word originated in 4000 BC. So much for that.Netaji 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Hollowcast - that should be the term?TerryJ-Ho 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just replace the "Hindu" by "Jew" if you are in Austria and you're in jail. Many secular scholars (Will Durant, for instance) have documented evidence from muslim sources detailing the holocaust of the Hindus by Islamics.Netaji 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the religion of peace is also a joke too huh? Also Ram was born in 5114 BC [2] not 1.3 million years ago like the 3M (Mullah-Missionairy-Marxist)-axis say. I dont know why you are talking about Bhagwan Ram when I am merely talking about the disputed structure. Of course your horrible attempts at humor mask the fact that you have not (and will not) be able to find proof to back up the Mullahs (not even Muslims, most Muslims dont care) side of the argument.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This Maharishi says Rama was born at least millons of years ago in Treta Yuga,By all means if it is Ram's birth spot who took birth million of years ago..How can one be sure of his place of birth.Considering both you and this Maharishi and this gentleman who has written on Vedic cosmology are correct,when you are not sure of when he took birth ,how can you say that he took birth on that exact spot[3][4]

Answer my question

It does not matter whether Ram's birth was in an exact spot. Prove it was not a temple before being destroyed and vandalized by the emperor Barbar and his barbarians.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That question is secondary.The primary question is whether or when Rama was born or is just a mythological legend.That site is important to Hindus as they say it is Rama's birthspot.If he was never born - what is the point of creating a birthplace and exactly on the spot where a mosque stood.Secondly,if you have gone through the external sources cited on the Babri - RJB pages, there is ample evidence that no such temple existed not from Muslim but Secular researchers.

I see no such evidence. The question I asked has gone unanswered. Meanwhile this question is a stupid question, because Ram did exist. I won't answer any of your questions (needless to say Ram existed, and the Mosque was an eyesore) until you give me refs. Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Read this again[5].Your semi-answer is a stupid answer itself.It is a mere contention..rhetoric and no fact.Prove that Rama was a human being that inhabited the earth just afte the dinosaur era [6] and by your second calculation of 9000 BC.There is no recorded history beyond 10000 years from now.You cant prove that such a person inhabited the earth - clean shaven.TerryJ-Ho

I made no such calculation of 9000BC. I asked for you to prove a TEMPLE never existed under the eyesore called the Babri Mosque. Anyways, your source merely proved there was a temple under the disputed structure. As for trying to put Ram advocates against Saivites, you will find that Saivites support the Ram temple and dont really care about whether it may have been a Saivite Ashram, myself (a hard core Saivite) included. As for your IP tag team buddy, you just screwed up his statement "there is ample evidence that no such temple existed not from Muslim but Secular researchers", looks like your trusted source failed you. For proving Ram existed, you may want to consult the Ramayan where Valmiki states "this is a true story" at the beginning of the narration.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Ram Janmabhoomi so important.Not because it is any temple but because it is the birthplace of Rama according to Hindutva history.So the actual question is whether or when Rama was born.So find out whether Rama was born or just a bed time story.You seem to be placing your eggs in a wrong basket when you say Saiva temple was found.The article is taking a dig at the historians by saying taht.Raed "There is no mention of a temple, only of evidence of a massive structure, fragments of which speak about their association with temple architecture of the Saivite style""However, D. Mondal questions this, saying that these pillar bases would have been unable to support "load-bearing pillars of stone". Mondal also says that the pillar bases are not contemporaneous, but belong to different structural phases. In other words, they were not built together as base pillars of one superstructure, ("a grand 10th century temple," as BJP president Venkaiah Naidu claimed) but belonged to different periods when they supported different superstructures.TerryJ-Ho 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"

They still stated there was a temple underneath the eyesore and that the mullahs went crazy (look at the bottom of the article).71.111.175.122 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I auto-signed out.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

and if you also see that in the interim report they could not find any traces of temple.that made the Mad Hindus crazy and it was also claimed that they manipulated evidence as well as destroyed their original notes within 24 hoursTerryJ-Ho 19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) how's reston?

Muslims and their liberal chelas said similar things about the Temple Mount in Israel also. Didn't work there, won't work here either. Too bad.Netaji 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I could care less whether Ram Janmabhoomi is a Shiva temple. Most Hidus still would rather see a Ram Janmabhoomi temple than an eyesore of destruction called the "Babri Masjid".Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

caps lock obsession

Dude. What's this?:

"DO NOTTTTTTTTT"

What are you, 10? Refrain from childish histrionics please. It makes you look sophomoric.Netaji 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscatory comments also make one appear sophomoric. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling people fascist (not aimed at BhaiSaab) makes people sound sophomoric.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascism talk

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. This is regarding your labeling of myself as a "fascist" [7] and [8] Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - This is reagarding your attack of Netaji using the term "fascist".Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note on my userpage. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Shell ^babelfish 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you're in the middle of a dispute over content in some articles. It was a really good idea to engage the Mediation Cabal to try to help resolve the dispute. However, calling people paid agents and making other disparaging remarks isn't a good idea. You've been asked to stop attacking - its always a good idea to remember, if your comment is about the contributor and not the content, you might want to reword it. Since you continued to be highly incivil even after repeated requests, you've been blocked for one hour. When the block is up, please continue with dispute resolution and don't let yourself be drawn into rude behavior just because you think others are doing it. A well-reasoned argument will get you much further. Happy editing! Shell ^babelfish 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have time and again told you there is no Muslim perspective on these issues - there is a Secular perspective and a Hindu Fundamentalist perspective.If I were to include Muslim perspective - you would see for instance that the death toll in Gujarat riots would have been stated as 3,000 or even around 20000.TerryJ-Ho

• Or maybe its the facts vs sentimentalism. Gujarat gov't gets the most investment out of all states in India, it also has the most transparent government, which means theres a very high chance gave the truth. Human rights watch is a leftist watch group accused of anti-Semitism and anti-Hindu actions, and it is in collusion with the CPI. The Muslim perspective is strivtly political and not motivated by facts. If the guju gov't wanted to pull off a stunt, wouldnt they exaggerate Muslim deaths? Modi is already the most popular CM in India (with a 75% approval rating), he doesnt need to change the facts to keep popularity.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Transparent government - That's why the entire world media is after Modi[9] and tha's why his US Visa was revoked and that is why EU envoys sent official demarches to India and that is why you could apply for funds from him , as per last news educational funds worth more than millions of Rupees were spent on Puja and Airconditioners.[10]

Entire world? Hah. Just a bunch of liberal "secularists" and their mouthpiece hate him. And West bengal was where they splurged on AC's. Good thing I read your sources, otherwise misrepresentation would be rampant. Anyways what can Modi do when Mullahs are turning to Wahhabism and creating terror factories [11]Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the block

• It is a complaint and I have the rightly described the nature of edits being done by these two editors.Blocking me gives a wrong signal to them and probably will encourage such concerted POV pushing.
• I have already mentioned somewhere that the organisations supported by these editors have been mentioned as having fascist tendencies by world media.They cant deny that.
• Some examples against whites from User: Bose.

"There is no shortage of hindu-haters among white scholars, or their pinko moonbat lackeys in India. Surely some hindu-hater like Wendy Doniger, Deepa Mehta or Arundhati Roy has a copy of the film on their website. Find it. Then put it up." [12]

• My mention of them as US government lawyer and (not Wikipedia's) was their attitude in the article.No comment below is racist in character.This is a false charge and the user who has made that should be blocked.Secondly, they insist on pushing some comments from Daniel Pipes (who is widely known for his Pro-Jewish POV leanings)
• "The world outside the US is irrelevant"

Read the para "Human Rights Watch has been criticized as a fraud" in [13].See how the edits end."The world outside the US is less relevant"

The complete thread of that discussion is mentioned below [14]

Refrain from inserting original research that is irrelevant to the Babri Mosque article. Plus, the section on Pipes you inserted is tantamount to a character assassination of well-respected and US government appointed political scholar Daniel Pipes. Further perpetration of such a deed is grounds for reporting.Netaji 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting as legal??TerryJ-Ho

Is Wikipedia a US government property and you their lawyer? I have taken cue from you .In fact, I have been everyone as Anti-Hindu.TerryJ-Ho

Last sentence was meant to say "I have seen everybody tagged Anti-Hindu here"

• In this comment I have not named anyone as Hindu Taliban such inference is just an imagination.I have only given a general example.

[15] TerryJ-Ho 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • My problem in these pages is the frequent usage of the Word Anti Hindu and Pro Marxist to describe anything that does not agree with their POV's.These are strong words and often these are not justified with anything other than an established Hindu Right Wing site.These authors openly proclaim India is Hindu Right wing and all the Hindus outside India are supporters / Members of these fundamentalist Hindu organisations.
• [16]

You were only blocked for an hour, and I doubt you were even aware of it until the guy told you that you were blocked for (one hour). I take issue with you describing eerything that doesn't subscribe to the Muslim perspective as "fascist" and "POV pushing/revisionist/etc.". Arun Shourie is a respected writer and the ASI is a respected authority on archaeology. Since you censor all objective sources with a supposed "Hindutva" slant, Netaji was justified in asking you to qualify all sources. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arun Shourie is a member of BJP and Sangh Parivar and ASI under a BJP government is as suspect as their home minister Advani - who literally sat over files on his own investigationsTerryJ-Ho

All right. Who do you want the Muslim League? The ASI is not motivated by politics, or is everything tied to the indian gov't an "arm of Hindutva hate-mongering anti-secular politics"?Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As a department under a ministry chaired by a BJP politician who have maintained their unequivocal agenda of Hindutva - they can not be fair and balanced observers.They are themsleves the players TerryJ-Ho

Where did you get that from? countercurrents? dalitstan? ecumene? IMC? Of couse those are secular (especially IMC and ecumene) so they are the voice of truth.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think these sites have been used - however these are very mainstream sites and they republish news from very mainstream India and International media.You can not compare Bharatvani or Elst or Oak to them - the research of whom is original.You can compare your Hindu vani sources with Muslim Sites who would be more directly concerned with the Hindu Muslim issues and these Muslim sites have rarely been cited in these articles.TerryJ-Ho

Dalitstan mainstream? Ecumene? Really wow I didn't know anti-India, "secularist", news was mainstream. Perhaps you should read the Pioneer ot TiEBakaman _Bakatalk 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

HI there

In case u have'nt noticed you have been accused of Sockpuppetry in form on my user by User:Subhash_bose. Boy he's become paranoid with folks (users) who hold a neutral POV on crimes perpetrated by Sangh Parivar. I guess both of us are equally rational in this regard.

Yes, I wish Baka requested a user check on Neta's behalf now TerryJ-Ho 10:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you are acting in concert with Geek. I have removed your name, just out of AGF and nothing more.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You also supported the attack right here [17].Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Could as well be" is quite different to "can be" and the following "or are members ..." qualifies the front part of the sentence ..I think TerryJ-Ho 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you people?

ca veut dire quoi? TerryJ-Ho 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

CiteCop 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why were you and those other guys leaving messages on my Talk Page? CiteCop 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Poking around I see that you've also been targeted by Subhash bose. He's got a real talent for making friends, that one. And why does is his signature different from his username?
CiteCop 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have already informed some admins that his signature and pen name both correspond to the noted Indian Freedom fighter Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but seems they could find a loophole TerryJ-Ho 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Its cuz bose died nearly 60 years ago. Not recently deceased or alive.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny

Anwar thought you were Netaji's sock [18] (bottom of page).Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not make claims against RSS when they have been refuted by scholarly sources

Removed Defamation template inserted by HKelkar Hkelkar 11:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't post bogus templates on other users.RSS being fascist inspired comes from Verifiable sources - Financial Times and The Hindu.I dont claim responsibility to what they have told.If this warning goes please add it to FT and The Hindu websites.TerryJ-Ho 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, RSS's alleged fascist leanings are baseless accusations, based largely on attacks from biased people. The articles prove nothing other than vague associations and circumstantial evidence. There is scholarly evidence backed up by journalistic sources on Indian Express that prove that RSS is not fascist. That carries precedence over editorials.Hkelkar 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to "bring it on"

Look at your own contribs. Have you done anything constructive your last 50 edits?Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I am not a student like you with a plenty of free time and resources from the university.I suppose you are studying Physics at a State University in the US but I wonder if I have seen any edits on your area of research in Wikipedia.Good that you have created some of very intellectually demanding edits on items like Laddu and Peda.Keep it up...and by the way your edits make articles more controversial than informative.TerryJ-Ho 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics? State University? What a joke. I know exactly what you are saying.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like a Request for comments on your edits? TerryJ-Ho 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those edits were for a stub and template I created. As for RfC, I have alrdy had one frivolous RfC filed against me, dismissed as harrassment during the time Bose wasn't around to "make some noise" like you suggest I do. It failed because it was an unmerited attack kind of like 3 sock cases and a medcab .19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Don't move from general to specific.I simply said I would like to bring a RFC on whether your edits are adding value to the encyclopoedia in general with their pros and cons.Such mechanism I think exists on Wikipedia ..we can confirm with admins TerryJ-Ho 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ashfaqulla Khan

Up for AfD. Thought you may want to look into it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers TerryJ-Ho

Add those sources to said article. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I liked quotes on your userpage.Impressive.HW 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mate.

Interesting Research Paper on Hindutva

Negotiating History

Personal Attack

This edit of yours is unacceptable and a violation of WP:NPA

Another one such and you will be reported.

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.

Shiva's Trident 07:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't play with words. The attack was clearly directed at me as the discussion where you interjected was directed at me. I am allowed to remove vandalism and personal attacks from the talk page. If you persist with this sort of insulting then I will report you. This is your final warning.Shiva's Trident 09:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above message is again high handed and ascribes something to me that was not intended to mean.Do not put in false interpretations to my statements when there exists none TerryJ-Ho 09:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi

Milligazette, The Hindu article, NPR, [19]. He is Muslim, one of the Ashfaqulla Khan kind instead of the SIMI kind.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems he accepts being one from the first interview.So let him be it.Otherwise, you seem to have a very nice definition of Muslims Ashfaqulla type and SIMI type like many say Hindus of Sanghi types and non Sanghi type.TerryJ-Ho

Malegaon

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources

Specifics of milligazette not confirmed by other sources.Hkelkar 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wikipedia policy is explicit on the point of checking multiple sources. No other non-partisan source verifies the claims by what clearly is an Islamist propaganda mouthpiece.Hkelkar 11:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources :

Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.

Hkelkar 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, kindly read WP:Civility regarding this edit:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hkelkar&curid=6657508&diff=75272789&oldid=75272771

I advise that you take care.Hkelkar 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Hi -

one can speak of Vedic mathematics, Islamic mathematics and Pythagorean beliefs; those are different kettles of fish. Bellbird 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't Islamic Mathematics.It is purely mathematics by Muslim Mathematicians.If a Muslim scientist helps in Nuclear Physics do we call it Islamic Nuclear Sciences TerryJ-Ho 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

better to speak of Mathematcians who were Muslims by religion than Muslim Mathematicians in case you read something else in my wordings TerryJ-Ho 15:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it matter? The fact is Muslim users may want to know which mathematicians are Muslim and Hindus and Jews and Christians want to know likewise for their religions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They can consult a list of Muslim scientists, if their intention is that.When you place a category - that becomes an exaggeration as if being Muslim was most important to them at the expense of other aspects of their life and personality that are not present on that page..Secondly, religion is a very complex issue, say for example , many people place Salman Rushdie as a Muslim writer as he was born in a Muslim family..while he can't be called as Muslim as he does not believe in the fundamental creed of Islam and has been declared apostate...similarly what would you say of Ayaan Hirsi Ali..Is she a Muslim? Many in the west mention her as a Muslim woman..while she may not be one in the eyes of the Muslims themselves..I already mentioned the Bollywood actor Dharmendra - who is legally Muslim but for all other purposes Hindu..Who is going to ensure that such categorisation is correct and who will define what makes them belong to a particular religion??? TerryJ-Ho 18:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Bellbird. Note I support all categorizatoins of Mathematicians by religion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Cite sources that explicitly debunk the use of Hindu as an ethnicity. Ethnicity is a religious/Cultural identity. There is a difference between the term ethnicity and the term "race". By the modern definition Hindus are an ethno-cultural/religious group ergo ethnicity.Hkelkar 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan

Hi - as I'm sure you're aware, there has been some edit warring going on at Tipu Sultan, which has, from what I've seen, lead to some nasty accusations and personal attacks. Of course, these are things that we don't want in Wikipedia - we're building an encylcopedia, not making an informal forum for arguement. I have been called upon to mediate for, and provide my opinion on the article in question by User:Hkelkar, and am sending this message to all those to whom I feel it pertains. What I am looking for are reasons for the reversion (or, as I could be seen by some, content blanking) of edits by Hkelkar, which were well sourced (WP:CITE) verifiable (WP:V) and presented in a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), in the hope that with this reasoning, I can turn the article back into a peaceful editting area. As part of this request, I would like you to consider that Hkelkar's submissions were well sourced, and that if there is a counter arguement against them, then that should be included too - the whole contribution should never be deleted. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and please place your reply in a new section on my talk page. Thanks again, Martinp23 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 01:33, 9 October 2006 Hkelkar (Talk | contribs) (Criticism should be at the end for better flow.)

Why do you throw my name in the fray? I have never edited the article, nor do I even care about Tipu Sultan.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Regarding your query to Martinp23, I suggest you look at this [20].Hkelkar 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks..I am not expecting reply from you.I have already seen that.TerryJ-Ho 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I will not repeat this warning. If you persist then I will report you.

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: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_bin_Qasim&curid=1145077&diff=81111651&oldid=81110303

Hkelkar 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)