Welcome!

Please “sign” (~~~~) your messages.

Note:Replies of any discussion started here will be replied here itself. Please drop a Talkback box if you have any messages for me elsewhere.

Archives

Live Page. Archive 1. Archive 2.

I guess we have to keep a closer eye on this one and this one. Vedant (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; May be you would like to have a look at these articles as well: Kunan Poshpora incident, Burning of Lal Chowk. regular POV pushers' hangout. second one is much POV ridden i would say. Arjun^codename024 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Unfortunately there is no shortage of articles like this though thankfully WikiProject India does take some action and atleast the most important articles are not thoroughly defaced by a bunch of vandals. Worse, there are still tons of editors like this though one that sticks out is User:Lalit Jagannath. Take a look at his contributions.

I do have to point out though that some of these claims are fairly well researched (others not so much) and while I think that certain organizations have a tendency to embellish certain statistics, a lot of these facts don't appear in dispute. It should also be noted that the Indian government is not always the most truthful when it comes to admitting cases of human rights violations which are not an uncommon occurrence in India. In addition, it is practically a given that Indian Security Forces have in the past engaged in gross violations of human rights which I would classify is conduct un-becoming of a democratic government. I'm not attempting to justify the human rights violations of any other country but it would be unfair to dismiss all of these allegations. I do agree with you though that the second article is ridiculously twisted and am forced to wonder how long before said editors decide to widen their interests and make India look like the instigator of all human rights violations in the sub-continent. Vedant (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this a credible source?Vedant (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that like any other force, Indian Security Forces have their share of human rights issues; however these editors press hard to show up one side of the topic only and present sources to that regard - thus making up a false illusion that the article is well referenced. For worse, a lot of these editors are the come-and-go type. We see different names in different days all having the same motive though - making it difficult to follow up their contribs. Arjun^codename024 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that matter, it's just that we should be careful what we add/remove to the article. I believe that the violations of the involved Indian paramilitary/military organizations should be reported on but should be done in a neutral tone. It's also true that most people will just read one article on Wikipedia and formulate their entire opinion on a matter which is why said editors indulge in editing these articles. It seems to me that they are only interested in looking for sources that enable them to push their POV which is why one of the articles in question heavily references only two citations. There's a somewhat similar issue going on in the Sino-Indian War article where certain users consider Neville Maxwell to be the only authority on the matter and take his words as divine wisdom. Vedant (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun, I just wanted to tell you to tread carefully. I don't personally agree with all the claims that said users are instating but it is not a good idea to violate WP:3RR as if someone reports it to an admin, it's almost guaranteed to result in a block unless the other user was vandalizing the page. Kabuli raises a valid point that Srinagar lies in Indian-Administered Kashmir but I believe you are correct in that Srinagar is located in territory that is administered by/belongs to India. Nonetheless, I urge you to take it up with an administrator before reverting his edit again. Vedant (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was more to his point that there exits a consensus in Kashmir related articles to do so - but i could not see such a consensus in the articles of places administered by Pak. However, i did not revert his next edit before talking it up in his talk page. thanks for the 3RR reminder. Arjun^codename024 10:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit any articles about Muzaffarabad to reflect that they are in "Azad Jammu & Kashmir" or "Pakistani-administered Jammu & Kashmir." The Srinagar page, which I have not edited, clearly reflects the general consensus on WP in terms of nomenclature for J&K cities. I've also noticed that you've started removing fully referenced statements from other articles that I have written. My edits are generally based on neutral, third-party sources. Please do not remove referenced statements from articles. Kabuli (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you said for your edit in changing "Srinagar, India -> Srinagar, Indian administered Kashmir" was that there already existed a consensus. My intention when i pointed you to the article Muzaffarabad and others in "Pakistani-administered Jammu & Kashmir" was to let you know that such a consensus is non-existent in the sense all Kashmir articles are bound to one. On your accusation that i have removed fully referenced statements from other articles, would you be kind enough to pin point them. I have tried to stick to NPOV as far as i could; however i know i would have made mistakes. Bring that up, let us talk. Well in this article, i have made a minor tweak, which i think you will agree.
Honestly i have my own doubts about the cited source (the book whose name goes by "My Kashmir" ). It could have used the phrase a crowd of more than one million as a hyperbole rather than an estimate of the count. i searched news sources, but could not find sources referring to a crowd of more than one million. So i would urge you to cite yet another source to back the claim in that book, because editors could remove it in the future citing this reason. Arjun^codename024 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is by a (non-Kashmiri) Indian senior ICS officer who was posted in Kashmir at the time. In any case, I have added an additional sourceKabuli (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Kunan Poshpora incident, you have inserted a phrase "and perhaps as many as 100 women" from a NYT source which says "Local people say that as many as 100 women were molested in some way." . Local people can say anything. Many other incidents in the world have gone by with local people claiming far bigger things. This does not let you put such insignificant fringe theories in wikipedia using a "perhaps" - Truly un-encyclopedic. In that article itself, it says "Local villagers alleged that up to 100 women .........." which is correct and sourced. Arjun^codename024 10:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence would read "as few as 23, and perhaps as many as 100 women, reported that they were allegedly raped." The sentence already includes the qualifiers "allegedly" and "reported." The purpose of the statement is to give an idea of the scale of the alleged crimes that occurred, and I think its unfair to retain only the lower estimate while deleting the higher estimate.Kabuli (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The higher estimated comes from the local people and i agree that it should be mentioned. Pls have a look at the 4th sentence of the second section (Local villagers alleged that up to 100 women "were gang-raped without any consideration of their age, married, unmarried, pregnancy etc.,"[1]). Here it is mentioned as such. The earlier construct using a "perhaps" is an editor's synthesis and are not allowed in wikipedia.
* Note: I have changed that sentence since it's earlier version was out of sync with the source.( earlier version: Local villagers alleged that up to 100 women "of all ages and conditions… were raped by one to seven men at a time… often in the presence of their children and families."[1]) . When i get time, i will verify the sources and bring more sources to the article. Arjun^codename024 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you're trying to de-emphasize the extent of the allegations of human rights abuses. There is absolutely no reason why a range of alleged victims cannot be given in the opening paragraph, especially with all of the proper qualifiers ("allegedly" etc) in place. I went though immense effort to make that article as impartial as possible - the opening paragraph clearly presents the Indian government's viewpoint on the crime, even though every major human rights organization and the US State Department have rejected the Indian government's claims. I also do not appreciate the accusation of "un-encyclopedic" editing, especially after seeing your blatantly partisan initial edit on the Srinagar protest entry.Kabuli (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly wrote down that Human Rights Watch reported such and such; replacing what was written like a textbook entry [1]. And I did not remove this from the lead.... If you were intending the previous edits where i removed -"of all ages and conditions… were raped by one to seven men at a time… often in the presence of their children and families."- It had no connection with the cited source. The source said something else and some editor synthesized this from it - which is not allowed.... You had self-declared that WP has already come to a consensus about kashmir articles and when i point you the contrary with regard to those in Pak-Kashmir, you chicken out by saying "feel free to edit them". Just the kind of articles you edit says for itself your vested interest and Now you accuse me of partisan edits out of you desperation. Arjun^codename024 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you give me a warning that you will block me from editing the site of Cheraman perumal, he did convert to Islam, there was a mosque built, he left his throne too, why do you want to make it as if its not really clear and hide the truth?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dira786 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another user having explained that Cheraman Perumal is a generic name, have redirected the page page Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert) to another page featuring his real name. I do not know about any contents of that page since i have never been involved in editing that article. But, you cannot simply remove the redirect and insert the copy-pasted content into that page without any explanation or discussion. If you think that the page needs to be moved, pls read the essay Wikipedia:Requested moves and take the steps as described there. Also make sure you pen down a summary for each of your edits. Happy editing Arjun^codename024 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my add regarding Israel state-terrorism? Where should I put it instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a bit confused between State-sponsored terrorism and State terrorism. When a nation-state is sponsoring a terrorist group/terrorism intended at a special cause its called State-sponsored terrorism. On the other hand, if a nation-state uses its forces (eg. commandos of their armed forces) to conduct terrorism its called State terrorism. Pls read the two articles. Hope you now find my revert to be correct. Thanks for talking it up. Arjun^codename024 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, you might want to have a look at this article - Gaza flotilla raid. Arjun^codename024 20:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I get it, but where should I put it then? on the stateterrorism wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could put it in the History section of State terrorism i guess.Arjun^codename024 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern,

Pau Gasol is represented by Metro Public Relations and we request that the ending paragraph,

"Gasol currently resides in Redondo Beach, California.[42] Pau is currently going out with gymnast and Dream Cheer's
cheerleader Silvia López Castro. They were first spotted sitting on the sidelines at the 2010 All-Star games in Dallas Texas,
during the Rookie-Sophomore basketball game, and then again holding hands in Feb. 19, 2010 when he took her to the Los Angeles
Sports Awards at the Hotel Marriott where he received the 2009 L.A. Sportsman of the year. Silvia has moved over to live
with him in his Redondo Beach home," 

please be removed as it is now false information.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at:

Robbie@Metropublicrelations.com

Thank you,

Robbie Greenwald Metro PR 9025 Wilshire Blvd. The Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90211 310.601.3211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetroPublicRelations (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by verifiable information cited from Reliable sources, not by what a public relations firm would like to get published. Have a look at these essays - Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You might also want to see this proposed policy - Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy).Arjun^codename024 06:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing forces us to retain that information. The sources are several months old, so the content may very well be incorrect. I think it's better to tread cautiously and remove the information, especially when it comes to a person's personal life. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be better that way, may be. But if you see the rev history, i reverted an unexplained edit by some user who seemingly doesn't endorse the spirit of Wikipedia. We cannot allow people to remove content just because it aint good for their PR. Arjun^codename024 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with that. But in this case, it does seem quite plausible that the information is simply wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Over time, however, the Sufiana governance gave way to outright Muslim monarchs' appears in the article which is true but no explanation for it is given which I provided. The reason is Islamic requirement to turn the world into Darul Islam as per Koran and hence link of the 'Holy' Quran with the appropriate verses was quoted as reference (just click the verses in link to see them in Koranic perspective). Another was a site on the History of Jihad in India with special reference to Kashmir which by any standards are most reliable sources and none can ignore Quranic instructions as non-reliable sources while discussing on Islam & its nature, in this case Islamic Government. Likewise without history of jihad the article is incomplete not only in elucidating the quoted line at the top but also in writing about overall Muslim rule in Kashmir!--Surajcap (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way it has sense to add titles in different languages in an article? Hosur is a part and parcel of TN and has nothing to with any other language. I undoing your edit. If you think adding more language is appropriate, then do the same after discussions and debates at the article's discussion page. Vaazhka Thamizh.. Vazharka Thamizh..Akilash (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a point say it straight and don't bring your effing Tamil jingoist slogans in here.Arjun^codename024 08:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Hosur#Hosur_and_languageArjun^codename024 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes Arjun024, By mistake i missed to give a comment there which lead to chaos. Fine Its all right now. Wasifwasif (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you have heard of the famous San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan zone. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! What's this for .Arjun^codename024 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at the Amritsar page. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as i go through the San Diego–Tijuana article i find

The San Ysidro border crossing (San Diego–Tijuana) is the busiest border crossing in the world[2].; in 2005 alone, 41,417,164 people entered the U.S. through this port[3]. There are 24 vehicle border crossing lanes at the San Ysidro Port of Entry into the United States and 6 or 8 lanes into Mexico from San Ysidro. The great majority of border crossers into the United States are workers (both of Mexican and U.S. nationality) commuting from Tijuana to jobs in the greater San Diego area and throughout southern California. There is also a thriving reverse traffic for those seeking entertainment in Tijuana, or purchasing services (vehicle repairs, hair and beauty services, childcare, medical and dental) that are generally more affordable there

Nothing like that happens in the border between Amritsar and Lahore, i believe. If you were replying to just my edit summary, not to my edit - I didn't know about San Diego–Tijuana and moreover -even if i knew- fitting in that small space why Amritsar and Lahore cant be part of same metro area wouldn't have me write anything else either. Arjun^codename024 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new info, BTW Arjun^codename024 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't trade on the large scale as in the San Diego-Tijuana border. But there is a large cross border trade organisation; regular public transport (train and bus via Wagah) and increasing trade links between the cities (trade was expected to exceed $10 billion by 2010 & over 8000 people visiting the border on an average day just on the Indian side). There is even talk of both nations respectively opening consulates on either city of the border in order to increase ease in gaining visas. So, it depends on interpretation. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have people commuting from one of the cities to other. None among the people go to other city for basic needs. Because of the hard border, there is no single stretch of urbanized somewhat free-travel-able stretch of land. Well, of-course everything depends on how you interpret.Arjun^codename024 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjun, I looked at the article you suggested and having done some research on the matter, I do think it presents an accurate view of what happened. I still personally think the article has a somewhat biased tone to it but I don't have any evidence to the contrary so I'm going to leave it as is for now. I do think however that the article should probably be renamed to something a little more neutral (i.e. Lal Chowk fire, 1993 Lal Chowk fire etc.) Vedant (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; Thanks for looking. Arjun^codename024 15:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As expected a user was opposed to my renaming of the article calling it a "partisan" attempt to minimize the atrocities committed by Indian paramilitary and military organizations. I left my opinion regarding the matter on his talk page. Vedant (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you could take a look at this article and let me know what you think. I tried to make it as neutral as possible. Also, do you think an article move is justified or should we keep the name as is? Vedant (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would again advise against violating WP:3RR on the Kunan Poshpora incident as if someone reports it to an administrator, it's most likely that both parties would be blocked if they were both found guilty of violating it. Vedant (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take care to do at most 2 revs in "24 hrs".Arjun^codename024 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed but still take care nonetheless, people can be blocked even if they technically do not violate WP:3RR.—Preceding unsigned reply added by Vedant (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC). (Sign added by Arjun024)[reply]

OK.Arjun^codename024 07:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page renamed as requested.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksArjun^codename024 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by mistake I removed it in your User Page Thamizh Azhakan (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok doing that to my userpage. Well, I understand that you are the IP user vandalizing articles containing non-Tamil languages. I bet you that if you continue your disruptive editing (by using multiple accounts or by being anonymous) you will be easily caught and your even your IP address range will be blocked. Arjun^codename024 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt whether the following users are one and the same person

• 59.92.48.185
• 58.68.93.163
• 59.92.8.135
• Thamizh_Azhakan
• Akilash - Arjun^codename024 15:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review this discussion regarding your recent edits. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its a simple thing buddy; i nominated it for CSD because "i thought" it deserved to be. You could have talked up with me before you took up things at the admin notice-board. And i am amused that you guessed malice from my username. Arjun^codename024 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arjun024. You have new messages at Talk:Kurukshetra War.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think the statement in the quote I edited from the Washington, that the article "Marriage and Maternity" "vigorously opposes" laws for abortion's suppression is unsupported by the article itself and overstated. Hence my correction, wwhich I think is more faithful to the actual article's text. What are your thoughts? It really seems the quote used in its entirety departs from NPOV.

173.13.213.65 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the article or its archive copy now. But my logic on the revert was that it was quoted and any change inside the quote harms the actual article's intent. Arjun^codename024 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to leave your opinion on the matter at the page. Another user whose contribution log indicates an excess of Sinophilia and Indophobia seems to take objection to my edits and has accused me of being a biased Indian despite the fact that he has a less than rosy history here on Wikipedia. Haha so I feel like demonstrating to this user that I will openly solicit an Indian's opinion on the matter. Vedant (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, i am not sure what to vote - So i would rather abstain. Moreover, i am afraid that the tainted editor will use this to allege canvasing and cause uninvolved admins to overlook the content issue. Arjun^codename024 06:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why have you removed the heading "Karkare led to the trap"? On what basis are you calling it fringe? In the meantime I am reverting the changes. SuchiBhasin (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain on what basis are you calling it fringe. Why don't you try BRD, Regards SuchiBhasin (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pls read WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTHESIS. Arjun^codename024

OK. It was easier to use selective deletion on your old userpage revisions, as there's a lot of them and it was easier to handle that way. They'll still be visible to admins. If that's still too much, let me know.

As for your first edit, it's been oversighted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but it will take some time. Mass oversightings are one of those things that tie up the data base and slow down everyone's editing. It is best done in bunches. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'Prithviraj (Malayalam actor)' is inappropriate as Prithviraj has been doing films in Tamil and Telugu also. Its not fair to restrict him as a Malayalam actor only.

It would be ideal to revert back to Prithviraj Sukumaran or Prithviraj (actor) as u did earlier.

Icedaddycool (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you are acting as if you OWN the article. You had reverted my move to Prithviraj (actor), now you come and tell me "that" would be among the ideal choice. Prithviraj Sukumuran is unacceptable as he is not known by that name; he is known simply as "Prithviraj".
Therefore the name should be "Prithviraj<space>(<something>)". I also regret your indiscretion in re-moving the article before discussing; even after i came down to your talk page to let you know thinking you are an interested party. Arjun^codename024 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Naming clearly states that the name should be brief and concise. So, your choice of naming it Prithviraj (Malayalam actor) is not brief.

Another thing is, it is you who moved the article without discussing anything in the Talk page of Prithviraj Sukumaran.

If you really want to move the article, I suggest we move the contents of the disambiguation page Prithviraj to Prithvi Raj, then move Prithviraj Sukumaran to Prithviraj.

Icedaddycool (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no need to discuss before a move unless anyone has requested so; whatever, the article cannot be moved to "Prithviraj" as without doubt "Prithviraj Chauhan" is the most famous one by that name.
Moreover, parenthesized titles are considered more brief and concise; because the "name" part of the title can be made shorter. The concept of brevity applies to the name actually; not the entire string. Pls have a look at the article on Matthew Chandler Fox at Matthew Fox (actor) or the one on Imran Khan Pal at Imran Khan (actor). When we are talking about being concise, its about the name part (title minus parenthesis) - the string "Imran Khan Pal" is actually longer than the string "Imran Khan (actor)" - but since he is known as Imran Khan; the latter is preferred. I hope you will now concur with me. Rgs Arjun^codename024 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Farkhor Air Base - I don't suppose you had noticed the official script in Tajikistan is Cyrillic? Thanks.

See Tajik_language#Writing_system

In Tajikistan and other countries of the former Soviet Union, Tajik Persian is currently written in the Cyrillic alphabet, although it was written in both the Latin alphabet in 1930s, and the Persian alphabet before 1920s. In the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, the use of the Latin script began in 1928, and was later replaced in the late 1930s by the Cyrillic script. In an interview to Iranian news media in May 2008, Tajikistan's deputy culture minister said Tajikistan would study the issue of switching its Tajik alphabet from Cyrillic to Persian script used in Iran and Afghanistan when the government feels that "the Tajik people became familiar with the Persian alphabet".

--92.8.202.26 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RV was not to that point, yourself did admit that the transliteration is "rough"; Since i can't read Cyrillic i rm'd to make sure nothing harmful is in place. Thanks Arjun^codename024 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arjun024. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Arjun024. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following users are probably sock puppets:

• SuchiBhasin.
• Khan.found
• Cool_hindu

They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at WP:RFPP.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]