Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 30 January 2007

Archives

1 2

Anton Balasingham

Hi,

The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Hi,

Thanks for your attention, but I think we should go for a third party mediation with neutral editors as you mentioned. Otherwise it is going to be always a problem. I have already requested Seraphimblade and if you both discuss together, do something for this. Thanks for your advice to me.Rajsingam 11:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Parpanar

Please do not remove the tags .There is a content dispute.We need references.Thank you. 125.22.132.241 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brown people

Hello. I'd like to hear your comments on the current version of this article. It has been completely rewritten since its submission for deletion discussion and answers some of the concerns you raised in the nomination (namely, it is now well-referenced, reliably sourced, and academic in its purview). Because you are the nominator, I was hoping to hear any comments you might have on the current article since its recent rewrite. Feel free to add them to the bottom of the AfD discussion. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

From WP:Assume Good Faith : " However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." From all your edits in so many articles, and all the people who have a problem with your partisanship issues, you're clearly an exception. MinaretDk 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabha

I'm getting fed up with this silliness. Shall I show you exactly how the website author distorts Muller, or shall you actually read it for yourself - not just the passages he hightlights and the titles he gives, but the whole pages that are there? The whole thing is trying to prove that Muller was motivated by literal belief in the Bible, when he actually clearly says the opposite. Here are just two examples; the author has the following headings to passages he has scanned from Muller's book The Science of Language, Vol. 2:

"4000 years ago is very early period in history of the world!"

"I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens"

"Best method is to look for Jewish tradition

"Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition (contd.)

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (or Sanskrit is dimmed version of Jewish tradition)"

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (contd.)"

The last two are rather bizarre, since obviously MM does believe that Sanskrit and Greek have a common origin! This has nothing to do with dimmed memmories of "Jewish tradition".

Let's look at the section entitled "I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens". In fact this is a chapter called "Biblical interpretation". There is no "I belong to..." in Muller's text. This is a chapter in which Muller is summarising the views of Biblical literalists who "imagined they could recognise in Saturn the features of Noah and in his three sons, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, the three sons of Noah, Ham, Japhet and Shem". The author highlights in yellow the statement about the sons, while cutting off the word "imagined" and trying to suppress the obviously satirical tone of Muller's words - which form part of an unambiguous rejection of such methods. The section entitled "Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!" is even more duplicitous. Here we have a highlighted passage in which Muller appears to say "it is impossible to doubt that here we have a tradition of the garden of Eden". However, the author accidentally includes evidence of his own duplicity, by elsewhere including a scan of the previous pages which make it clear that the words are quoted from one F.A.Paley, specifically for the purpose of summarising the mistaken approach of "Biblical interpretation". I could go on...and on. Paul B 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On Muller, I suggest that you read Nirad C. Chaudhuri's biography, or his own works. Muller was essentially a liberal Protestant from the German Idealist philosophical tradition. He was actually consistently opposed to Nordicism (the "blonde master race" theory that was later taken up by the Nazis). As he wrote "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language... in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians...To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar."

On Ashvahmedha, there are three full English translations of Yajurveda available, Griffith's, Keiths's and Chand's. Griffith and Keith both omit the controversial verses, because they find them too rude! So the evidence is actually the opposite of what you implied. The British translators were too prudish to publish them. Far from "mistranslating" to denigrate Hinduism, they actually suppressed the passages. Chand, a follower of Dayananda Saraswati, goes through extraordinary hoops to claim that the passage allegorically refers to spiritual duties. Paul B 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN3

You have been reported on WP:AN3. Why were you using popups to revert contentious edits? Please respond there, and don't bring in content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

{{helpme}} regarding this query which has gone unheeded twice. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reproduced below:

I had raised this issue earlier but nothing came of it so I shall repeat:

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on countercurrents.org, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that the text be removed by an admin. Thanks.Rumpelstiltskin223 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved. The text removed. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, Rumpelstiltskin223. I've removed the offending content. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just removed the "Self-Respect Movement" section before I got your message. I've Googled the other parts of the article, and I haven't come up with anything copyright-infringing; if I've missed anything, though, please let me know. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Caveats

(The following is a reply to a message by an anonymous account that has been deleted since.)

Re your edit summary: "No..You can not simply blank out others talks here..you have been doing that too often":

Actually, many people would say he can, because it's his user page.

To both of you: Can you please take a look at my cheat sheet? This might help you in cases like this. Please let me know your feedback. — Sebastian 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He looks like a block-evading user.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Please have a look at this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

your reverts

Your reverts on Kannada, Origin of Rashtrakutas has been reverted because the citations provided by Sarvabhaum are considered incomplete. These citations are now being studied by user:Nichalp, a senior wikipedian who is mediating, for accuracy. You are adviced not to play with reverts untill the facts come out. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I second dinesh's suggestion. Suryakant Kamat is a respected historian, and is not a Psec denier.Bakaman 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

purpose of revert

I'm curious as to your reasoning for reverting the edits I made to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003. You give no reasons.74.73.39.219 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

you've since written to me on my talk page

"It seemed to me that you were removing a large chunk of text, which I though was just some random ip vandalism. If I am wrong then I apologize to you and please revert it back to your version. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)".

Thanks for responding, and no i didn't remove large chunks of text. The graph was misplaced in the wrong section and another editor edited the caption in a way which concealed the nature of letters about the graph which are being cited. I'd appreciate it if you would revert your own edit back. The other editor in question has a history of trying to intimidate people with the 3RR rule (while often violating it himself), and will use the fact that I did a revert here against me if the opportunity arises.74.73.39.219 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223. The actions of this anonymous editor concerning this image are discussed here:

Talk:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Please see the section titled: "images and captions" --Timeshifter 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to also read the section Graphs on that talk page. Timeshifter is making up several shifting and spurious excuses to first delete the graph (which has been on these pages for months) and the captions altogether, and now to conceal the nature of the letters that I linked to, which discuss errors and distortions in this graph. Timeshifter has now made up about several different excuses to delete these sourced facts. His latest is claiming that wiki doesn't allow links which require a (free) registration on the Lancet website. To back this up he truncated wiki guidelines to make it appear as if these guidelines supported his (latest) excuse.74.73.39.219 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He's also been using threats of 3RR blocks to try to intimidate me into accepting his excuses and letting his censored versions stand. So I put these sourced facts there, he censors them with spurious shifting excuses. I put them back, he censors again, etc. etc. Then he threatens to have me blocked for 3RR. Now he's decided to leave the graph there, but censor the caption to conceal the nature of the cited exchange in the Lancet, which he seems to be pretending not to be able to read. Then he's doing the same trick as above, trying to intimidate me with a 3RR block again if I don't let his censored version stand.74.73.39.219 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Revert

You just reverted 4 to 5 hours of work I did re: Roel Lungay as an anon editor. I understand your responsibility as an admin or vandal police, but please use your common sense. Check before you make a hasty conclusion. Just by the look of it, my work was clearly adding helpful links to the table items. I realized I didn't log in as a user but that doesn't give you any right to just revert stuff without being sure what you are doing. I expect more from admins or vandal police! After all you can claim to know better the Misplaced Pages principles than many of us newcomers. Make sure you're sure coz I'm no dumb either! --ChicogoN 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I reverted your edits in error. There is a lot of anonymous vandalisms going on and your edit just slipped in by mistake. Please forgive me and feel free to revert my reversion. I will do it myself in a few minutes. Thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|I did not commit 3RR. See explanation below}}

• Edit #1: a revert
• Edit #2 a revert
• Edit #3 not a revert, an expansion _ move of text to Caste-related violence in India where it belongs
• Edit #4 Certainly not a revert Rumpelstiltskin223 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1. 3 is a revert, you deleted the other person's section and replaced it with a different longer version of the section.

I did not remove it,

• I wasn't referring to #4, but rather the partial revert of Atulnischal, where you removed an adjective from the external link he added. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a revert??? Would you rather the phrase "Biggotted" (that too misspelled) be associated with the Archbiship of Russia?? That is a violation of WP:BLP and 3rr does not apply in that case . Rumpelstiltskin223 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a revert, however you are correct about the BLP, so I have unblocked you. Sorry for the inconvenience. I remind you however, that you are still sitting on #3 revert. I think you should also put BLP in the edit summary to make your life easier - I do too, when necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good, but it says "Autoblocked" still. I thanks for ur advice. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto blocked

{{unblock-auto|1=66.240.254.10|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rumpelstiltskin223". The reason given for Rumpelstiltskin223's block is: "3RR Persecution of Hindus".|3=Blnguyen}} does it work? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Si, Gracias :) Rumpelstiltskin223 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I think your comments would be better off in Talk:History of Pakistan, that article is the one that needs serious modifications. Nobleeagle 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashvamedha

No, wont be participating much in the debate. Am staying away from these things having not much knowledge of asvamedha myself. Manu Smrti, I know better. But not ashvamedha. Leafy 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found some text here. – http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/index.htm . — Nearly Headless Nick 13:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the Griffiths translation, which Paul Barlow claims is a forgery. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absolute BS. If he is saying ambedkar.org is a reliable source, then this should also be considered. Either remove all the disputed sources, or show each and every point of view. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A forgery?? You live in a world of your own don't you? And that's Keith's version, not Griffiths's. Griffiths' is not online. Paul B 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall look into this matter. I don't need any translations.Kanchanamala 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Since you inquired (on Leafy's page) regarding where to begin researching revisionist positions wrt the sacrifice, I would be grateful if you could do research into the position of Swami Dayananda Saraswati -- I placed a few google books links on his article, maybe you can find where he addresses the topic. It will probably turn out he bases his argument on Puranas or Upanishads. You could begin by searching the Mukhya Upanishads and the Mahapuranas for occurrences of the term "ashvamedha". A collection of Puranas and Upanishads is here. thanks for your help, dab (⁳) 14:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi

I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Technical help

What is the simplest way to compile a list of all the articles that I have created? Is there a technical way to do it without me having to sift thru my contribs? Rumpelstiltskin223 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this link. If you have any follow up questions, don't hesitate to ask. --Nick—/_Contribs 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Please comment at this talk page. Nobleeagle 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Material

Please don't removed sourced material from articles, such as you did at Devadasi . This is considered vandalism. If you object to the material please discuss this on the talk page to reach consensus with other users. Thanks! The Behnam 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current article seriously downplays their post-ancient role as prostitutes. This is able to be verified in a number of places, while the downplaying seems to emanate from apologetic groups such as hindunet or revivalist exhortations. I simply searched the internet and found quite a bit of credible, academic information on this issue, and so it made complete sense to incorporate this into the article, which currently acts as if the prostitute role was some sort of misguided colonial view. These aren't extremist POVs I am adding here; it was very generous of me to concede HRW from the article. But that did not appease you. The fact is that it remains a common description of devadasi today, and much of the verifiable and reliable sources on the matter definitely study it for what it is, religious prostitution of children. You will not be able to continue to force your view onto a page in light of the numerous sources are introduced and the numerous others that I could introduce, so you will have to compromise. The Behnam 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://child-abuse.com/childhouse/childwatch/cwi/projects/indicators/prostitution/part1.html not bogus. Simply search for the word "devadasi"(not "devdasi") and you will find treatment of the topic. It describes its cult function. The Behnam 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the lead should represent all points of view. Hence, I kept the "colonialist" mention, even though its sourcing was not clear. But undue weight shall not be given to the minority apologetic views that argue that it isn't prostitution. The Behnam 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Im afraid you are misquslifying and misreading most of the work. Many "allege" that it is prostitution but offer little evidence to support it other than the usual "Hindus are animals kill them all" polemic we see so often nowadays". Sorry buddy, but that doesn't at all describe the sources. The Behnam 05:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a strong assertion that my sources advocate killing Hindus, without providing support. Back this up or concede that your statement regarding the sources was a lie. The Behnam 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to prove that my sources are biased, much less that they fall in with a "kill all Hindus" polemic. Seriously, provide a relevant example; I already know that some Western sources(Max Muller) are biased, but that doesn't mean all. Specifically, backup your assertions about killing Hindus, etc. The Behnam 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting Witzel; again, please be relevant. The Behnam 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate integration does not mean downplay. It is a common scholarly view, and some of my sources are not even Westerners. I agree that the back-and-forth is annoying; I would have preferred that you simply modified/improved my additions instead of simply reverting them. That would have avoided this big conflict which was started when you simply wiped away my contribution despite the number of sources I provided, even after conceding a large and notable organization, HRW, from the equation. I hope you understand why I find this objectionable. The Behnam 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why I felt it would have been better if you had improved upon my additions instead of removing them entirely. It is the way good article editing should work; I believe we can work this out without massive removals and massive arguments. I definitely understand the need to represent both sides; I was inspired to add the information because the section was too apologetic rather than neutral, and portrayed the "prostitute" view as more of a colonial view than a modern view. Please, don't revert when real content is added, as this can usually be worked with in a way satisfactory to both parties. The Behnam 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks in accordance with WP:NPA. Your assertion here is an example of a personal attack in that you assert that User:The Behnam does not know how to assume good faith. This is uncalled for, and will not be tolerated for long. The Behnam 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't since he made a motive assignment (see above). Rumpelstiltskin223 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Warnings from Talk Page

You are not in place to decide whether or not a warning remains on your talk page, as you did here . Continue this indefensible breach of policy and disciplinary action will be taken against you. If you feel that the warning was issued wrongly, discuss this with the other user and let the other user remove it for you; example . The Behnam 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Something Quite Interesting

Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Inappropriate Removal of Warnings

You again removed warnings from your talk page . You are not permitted to do this, and your assertions about you being allowed to do so if it is 'meant to scare you' are completely baseless. Besides, the warnings aren't meant to 'scare' you, they are meant to notify you that an action of yours is not appropriate. Please refrain from this behavior or action will be taken. The Behnam 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather obvious scare tactic. Won't work. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani Child Abuse

LOL, if we have sources mentioning the problem as existing in Pakistan, it only makes sense to use it, though you are right in foreseeing a terrible battle coming with this. Those who object will simply have to recognize that their distaste for certain facts alone does not dictate Misplaced Pages. Anyway, we shouldn't be intimidated by Pakistani objections; feel free to add information to the relevant articles. The Behnam 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind if you add Pakistan to the equation. I will even help you fight off mad users who just don't like the view and hence want to remove it if you need it. The Behnam 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kisaeng

Maybe there isn't controversy because it is neither a "big" current issue nor religious. It appears that consensus there admits that the practice has become more like prostitution, and few "traditional" houses exist. Or it could be like Geisha, where people simply hijack the issue to prevent the accurate prostitute description. If you see Geisha, it absurdly describes their roles as "music, dancing, and communication.", failing to mention the prostitute aspect. I don't really understand the motives behind downplayers for Geisha; most of the "not-prositute" proponents I have met in real life are kind-of-feminists that have read the memoirs book. Anyway, I find it just as absurd that the prostitute aspect in those articles is downplayed, but this doesn't mean devadasi's prostitution should be downplayed, especially when it has been a big issue. All in all, I would have preferred working off of my edit rather than reverting. The Behnam 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The hetaerae or whatever its called doesn't downplay the fact that they are prostitutes; it probably doesn't have a neutrality issue because it hasn't existed for many, many years. The Behnam 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because those articles downplay it doesn't mean that is right. In any case, devadasi has, for some reason, received much more attention and study over the prostitute aspect, and the article should reflect this in a neutral manner. What's the deal with these kisaeng and geisha stuff anyway? What's the deal with trying to portray these prostitutes as "artists." I mean, it isn't like they were originally celibate temple dancers. Apparently they enforce their view with such things as "A true geisha ("Geiko") is not paid for sex." I suppose there are 'untrue' geishas that do! Funny stuff. Anyway, devadasi needs to mention the fairly common views and issues surrounding them with proper weight. The Behnam 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The devadasi has had more coverage, so WP should reflect this, but you are right in that is unfair on Indians that their cult prostitution is called child prostitution while similar practices elsewhere in Asia are left alone or even defended by Westerners. But as you have pointed out,the religious difference is sometimes a role, but I don't think that was going on with most of my sources. I honestly don't know what is behind those oriental prostitute defenders, but it doesn't really affect the need for adjustment at the devadasi article. I'm not trying to "bully" Indians, but rather I am trying to make the article neutral in a way that reflects the prevalence of different views. I don't appreciate the accusation either. I ran into this article when I was reading about something Azerbaijan-related on some dispute page, took a look, and saw it needed some balancing. Perhaps I will get around to the other articles someday. In any case, we should just work on making a good article, and I think it would be best if you simply improved upon my contribution, since it did contain legitimate information. By the way, I have to study, go to bed, go to classes now so I won't respond for awhile. I look forward to working on this later. Thanks for your part in ending the hostile discussion. The Behnam 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

adding anti-Pakistan bias

Okay,Im well aware of your inentions after you added some anti-Pakistan bias to the anti-Hindu article and the gun culture in Pakistan article.

Please stop it or I will have to make an issue of this on WP:ANI. Nadirali نادرالی

It would be helpful if you had raised this on the discussed pages of the articles or informed me before hand.DO not do this again.Nadirali نادرالی

No its not harassment or soliciting (which is not an offense anyway). Please keep your cool, be civil in every way in responding to Nadirali or discussing issues on the talkpages. There is absolutely no justification for anybody to adopt incivil ways - no provocation would justify that. Rama's arrow 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening you.Please stop with these silly accusations.Your edits to the gun culture in Pakistan is completely unsourced and biased.Nadirali نادرالی

Thanks for your positive response. Unfortunately, the average temperament is too high. There is no doubt that Nadirali's accusations violate WP:CIVIL. I advise both him and you to work on the lines of dispute resolution and not wage verbal battles or reverting. Sometimes it is just better not to respond or say anything, if you feel you can't control tempers. Rama's arrow 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some cooked up POV based "source".No facts can be seen there.I'm sorry that will not do.Nadirali نادرالی

No facts=bad source.Please stop making these incivil comments about "my opinion".It is not "my opinion" that I care about.I want articles to be neutral and factual,not some unencyclopediac accusations of "terrorism".On another note,I have studied in school in Pakistan and never studied from these so-called "textbooks" or anti-Hindu bias.There were also Hindu students in my school,so I think that would be enough to rebuff these silly accusations against us.You are starting to take this a bit too far.Nadirali نادرالی

Prejiduice exists in all countries now and then.No your source carrying some people's personal opinions is no good and is not "academic" as you state..Nadirali نادرالی

Alright then why not write a whole article on indian prejiduice towards chinese people. "Not state sanctioned in india".I see.So teaching indian children that Pakistanis are connected to so-called "Kashmiri terrorism" or that "Pakistan was carved out of (so-called) indian territorry" or that the "history of the indus belongs to india" or the indian armed forces bombing the holy shrine of a few helpless Sikhs is not what you'd call state- sanctioned prejiduice?Fine then.Nadirali نادرالی

Re:ip attacker

Hi - I've forwarded your message to Dmcdevit as I don't really know what to do in this matter. Rama's arrow 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop with your biased vandalism

You clearly know the rules here, you lecture people easily enough. You know the blanking of sourced text from articles without explanation or reason is considered VANDALISM. Stop vandalizing pages by deleting cited text and replacing them with unsupported pro-Hindu nonsense. I excused your accusation of me being an Islamic fundamentalist once, and then I saw you accuse another editor of being anti-Hindu. Your participation here is clearly detrimental to the purposes of this encyclopedia. Stop immediately.MinaretDk 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

no threats or personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please do not make threats or racial accusations against other users.

And please do not remove my warnings from your talkpage.Nadirali نادرالی