Archives

1 2 3 4

Hkelkar is trying all his fundamentalish ideas in Tipu Sultanand frequently vandalises it in the disguise of vikramji and just have a look what he has to the article! to whom should i report about his attitude.

Mujeerkhan19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I am not the one citing fake links to websites that don't exist. One wonders who is the real fundamentalish [sic] here.Hkelkar 19:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are all Muslims fundamentalists? Ewan G Keenowe

It was democratic before the Ummayads. Zazaban 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know that you know... Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Islam. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Patstuart 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I used popups (I won't in future unless it's vandalism).However, the edits are still POV, and I have balanced it out. Plus, the Irfan habib link is dead (check it) and several of the edits need citations. Why don;t you try to provide them instead of deleting everything?Plus, I have an advocacy request and an RfA pending on the article so I'd appreciate some patience with you and other meatpuppets of the Muslim Guild.Hkelkar 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, BhaiSaab. Be objective. Surely you can do that. I think you can.Hkelkar 18:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I am right about the Muslim Guild. It's not my problem as you all seem to be more involved with whitewashing Islamism right now. However, I'd appreciate it if you could hold off the revert wars on Tipu Sultan until the admins mandate action.Hkelkar 18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you ,er, proove[sic] it?Hkelkar 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneously???Hkelkar 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have been blocked recently and reacted to it with a rather large amount of hostility.Maybe you hould cool off about that as I was not involved there.Hkelkar 18:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well.I have seen evidence that there is an Islamist cabal on wikipedia and will continue to regard you as a member, no hostility there either. However, the removal of sourced edits is an act of vandalism, particularly when I did not remove that Mujeerkhan chap's unsourced stuff. Also, I have maintained a meutral narrative in the edit to Tipu Sultan, not taking a position on the allegations of religious persecution so my edits still stand on their own metir. Hope you will realize this.Hkelkar 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And accusations of sockpuppetry and Hindutva come from Islamists and their left-wing sympathizers, not a lot of merit there either :-) .Hkelkar 19:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that you're basically supporting a bogus troll made RFCU just to get Subhash-bose banned by crook?Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you obviously support the RFCU, do you think I'm subhsh_bose?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didnt see that.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" is hardly conclusive. Plus, you're only speculating of course.I doubt that the admins will make any summary judgements based on the needs of the Muslim guild.Hkelkar 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helker is using terms like "mohammedians" for muslims, which is a insult to all muslims and further more he said "Jews, Hindus, christians, and Baha'ii would feel the same way about being routinely called "Kaffir" or "Dhimmi" of "Dar-al-Harb" yet the terms are frequently used by Muslims/Musil-leem" which does not have a nexus with regards to Tipu Sultan

i tired to explain him but to no avail and also demanded an apology from him but he refrained from doing so which amounts to NPOV, uncivil, etc

Mujeerkhan 18:52, 1 october 2006 (UTC)

I need your help in improving article regarding The Quran and science as without proper reference and more material it might be deleted. Can you please help in extending it? --- ابراهيم 01:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be interesting: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Freestylefrappe - Valarauka(T/C) 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that the article is unprotected, I'll try to expand it with some useful information. - Valarauka(T/C) 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently an administrator. DRK 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not currently interested in pursuing a nomination though. DRK 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly nice. What exactly is your point? DRK 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you must note the "currently". It's my (poor) understanding that FSF used to be an admin, but got desysopped (spelling?). As of now he's working on regaining his lost status. He works his good contributions on his main sock, while keeping the controversial stuff on alternates ones. He got a good grasp on policy gaming so he'll probably succeed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since most of his non-controversial edits are top-notch. Jean-Philippe 22:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Think calmly. Several users, including Ruylong, regard the edits of seagal as vandalism (see edit history). Plus, the copyvio image of the Pakistani soldiers praying that he put there has been speedily deleted (check for yourself) per my db request. I am looking at the part abt nationalism and politics and will re-add that bit myself if it looks okay. The military edits are pure garbage and violate at least 2 wikipedia policies.Hkelkar 05:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The politics part does not seem so bad so kept it. The entire military part is unsourced (the only ref is a rediff article that does not correspond to the edit at all).Hkelkar 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the issues in my latest post of Talk:Pakistani nationalism. Claims of "Humiliating defeat" to India by pakistan are absurd per wikipedia articles on the Indo-Pak wars themselves, and the SI war entry is irrelevant as Pakistan had nothing to do with it. The war on terror part may be ok.Hkelkar 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I did not deliberately add any incorrect information to any articles.

Cheers, Uzumaki 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. I do not care for your incivil comments or your attempts to provoke me. Just leave me alone. Uzumaki 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in User:Uzumaki. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I'm warning you both, btw. --tjstrf 20:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that to you, since I have no precise knowledge of the guy he supposedly is a sock of. --tjstrf 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's a clear-cut offense and will get him (and you) blocked for a period, stopping the conflict for a while at least. --tjstrf 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.I hope I don't insult you by asking this but I was just wondering if it is possible in Islam to interperet early prophets such as adam and noah as metaphorical symbolic prophets rather than as literal human beings? I am intrested to learn about Islam as I believe that it is a good religon. Ewan g

For more metaphors and symbolism within Islam, you should look into the tradition called sufism.HeBhagawan 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was actually answering Ewan g's question above. Take care! HeBhagawan 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of the complaint, you're very likely to be blocked. Shucks :P In any case I'm watching him, a good admin has been notified and I'll wait and see what happens with that. I recommend against a rfcu as the sock as been clearly identified and a rfcu can only cause problems (eg.:public computer). He's baiting you, and responding to him is a waste of your time. He stopped abusing articles and I'll be watching him. Cheers. Jean-Philippe 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manusmriti is the normative text for caste system. If it says that a Shudra can become a Brahmin under special circumstances then he can. Plus, precedent of Caste elevation exists with Shivaji.05:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same thing abt Muslims also. Plus, the elevation of Shivaji's caste is an excellent precedent for some mobility:

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375407284&view=excerpt

Well Caste mobility is pretty rare among Muslims also (exceptions. not rules). The Shivaji quote is below:

An obliging Brahmin was found who agreed -- for a suitable fee [my add:Standard practice to pay Brahmins to do religious rites, even they have to eat y'know :) ] -- to arrange for Shivaji's elevation to the Kshatriya caste

Plus, look at the coronation section of Shivaji where this is mentioned. Caste elevations, though rare, were not completely barred. Another example is Tagore (a low caste Thakkur) who write the Indian national Anthem in Sanskrit (generally only the purview of Brahmins).Hkelkar 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll change it to enlist that it wasn;t exactly fluid in Islam either.Hkelkar 05:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Provide sources for your assertions (Cite page # & chapter # in the Fuller ref and I will check it to see whether you're fibbing or not).Hkelkar 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading another paper regarding social mobility in teh caste system:

Social Mobility in the Caste System in India: An Interdisciplinary Symposium. by James Silverberg

American Journal of Sociology

Once I read it I may have more stuff with regards to this. The fact that there is a research paper prove that social mobility DOES exist.Hkelkar 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine indicate that there was.Plus, the paper shows precedent for this.Hkelkar 05:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All four of us know thats perfectly true.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|I got blocked for two reverts - how far does this stupid 3rr electric fence go? [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)|decline=Remember, 3rr is a hard limit, not an entitlement. The spirit of the rule is to stop edit warring and encourage [[WP:TALK|discussion]], and by the looks of your block log, that hasn't quite sunk in yet. Please consider [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] instead of edit warring -- I won't say this is a hard and fast requirement, but you may wish to consider holding yourself to [[WP:1RR|1RR]] in the future, to promote harmonious editing. [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)}}

It is a fence you should stay far away from; you are not entitled to three reverts. I am going to tell you the same thing I told Hkelkar: Simply, do not revert at all. Discuss on the talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince the other user that his edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. You have been edit warring before, and you should realize that aside from being blocked, it is simply not productive. The change you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince other editors why a change ought to be made. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think admins can just put arbitrary limits on whatever user they want - that is for the arbitration committee. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would have considered unblocking you at that point of time, if you would have said something like – "I want to contribute to the encyclopedia and the block hinders that". Please remember that the policies and guidelines exist for Wikipedia and not the other way around; they are not hard and fast laws that can be used to request unblocks. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow really doubt that. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is she dead? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I knew of , are you perhaps thinking of Oriana Fallaci--CltFn 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed from her from the living persons category. BhaiSaab talk 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I thought that was irrelevant and unnecessary clutter , should we tag every living person's bio with that tag? If you feel its that importatnt then I guess you can put it back--CltFn 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then --CltFn 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your AfD for anti-Hindu to be a horrific act. I cannot correspond with you anymore and since you have a disparaging attitude towards me it will only waste both our time to argue.Hkelkar 01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I have peer reviewed it in order to find out what information should be on there, and then we can get on with refining it. I see no reason why, with a little sprucing, it shouldn't become GA once more. The only complicated and thorny issue for FA is the references, as all prose problems can be dealt with. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Category:Shi'a Muslims (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 05:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you mentioned is broken, so let's add the one I wanted to add instead. It is not a big deal, just an alternate point of view. Elizmr 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point. Having said that, their blocks will expire tomorrow then they'll start reverting each other again, and there's been a bit of block evasion going on already. Hmm. Ask Gwernol and see what he thinks. -- Steel 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear user BhaiSaab. I totally agree with you ! I've been also accused of antisemitism by Hkelkar (see my user talk page on [1]) simply because I used the word 'neocon'. But the funniest of all is that User:Shiva's Trident (also known under the name Netaji) introduces himself as neocon !. May be it's time to settle that case once and for all. We can mail-exchange info if you like. All the best and congratulations for your win. TwoHorned 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/16. It seems that some people want to remove any reference to Palestine. --Palestine48 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw edit-warring will get us both in trouble so please stop and get arbitration.Hkelkar 17:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word-sparring on the talk page will get us nowhere. Let's just ask for mediation and see what the mediator has to say.Hkelkar 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked somebody to mediate. I will go in irc and ask for mediation. Why don't you log in also?Hkelkar 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. wikipedia-en.Hkelkar 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 week, mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. Since Hkelkar is a declared Jew, and Ahmadinejad is a well-known holocaust denier and virulently anti-Semitic, I can only presume that you are trying to provoke something from him. Add to that, a lot of edit-warring and general fighting. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BhaiSaab (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

This has been reviewed. The edits at User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad are entirely inappropriate. You are more than welcome to ask someone to bring this up at ANI, but I doubt you will find any support for your edits. -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, so what's your problem? Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic and would this ever take place if he was anti-Semitic? Considering that Hkelkar goes sprouting opinions about Ahmadinejad all over the place, then you don't allow me do the same I would consider this a double standard. Another admin reviewed the same edits and I received no block, then you come in and look at the section on Hkelkars page without seeing what he did elsewhere, and decide to block me. Very irresponsible. BhaiSaab ^talk 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, I don't support ahmadinejad in anyway but you should take back your accusation of anti-semitism. You might want to read this article from Bernad Lewis http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21832.html . In any case, such an unjustified accusations, especially as a pretext for a block is unexpected from an educated, decent and respected editor of wikipedia. --Aminz 10:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing this issue to the ANI page. What do you think BhaiSaab? --Aminz 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Blnguyen's reaction to my statement before anyone takes this to ANI. I don't think Blnguyen realizes that not everyone has the same opinion about Ahmadinejad, and just because some western governments don't like his anti-Israel stance, it doesn't mean everyone agrees with them. BhaiSaab ^talk 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as you wish. I probably will be away from wikipedia for around 6 hours. --Aminz 10:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some misunderstanding, Blnguyen might have overlooked that it was Kelkar who introduced Ahmadinejad in that writing first.Best idea in such cases is to slap an incivility tag rather than replying anything.My view, I could be wrong TerryJ-Ho 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen seems to be ignoring the comments on his talk page. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to bring it to the ANI? (I am going for Iftar now but will be back in a few hours) --Aminz 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, at this point you might want to state that you'll just drop this line of editing and commentary related to all of this. Becausing blocking is meant as a preventative measure doing this will likely enhance the possibility of your being unblocked. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]