Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

interesting discussion --D-Boy 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"South Asian Caste System" anyone? Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HKelkar, first of all thanks for pointing me to the WP:AGF and WP:Civility. I will keep them in mind. But please note that the article in question, has no reference to caste based struggle as discussed on Talk:Indian_caste_system#.22Woman_raped_on_Train_by_Dalits. I suggest keeping in mind the facts we should try to remove the misinterpretation of facts. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hkelkar as per the article the crime has indeed been committed by dalit party activists, but where is the point of caste based struggle in it, see the news paper report [[1]]. Didn't we discuss all this on talk page of the article in question. The article already has many short comings, why induce another. Thanks and looking for your kind cooperation ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HKelkar, thanks for pointing me to Burakumin, I agree there should be no whitewashing under any circumstances to present a rosy picture. But the caste based angle in the article in question is more of criminal nature; and the power, the criminals in them, assert is that they are part of a political entity, maybe governed by people in power, who need their muscles during elections and for gathering crowds, and in return will save the criminals from the law of the land. Then by this yard stick all and any crimes committed by any one belonging to any caste, political party for whatever reason would merit a mention in the article. Just because the world caste/ ambedkar/ dalit appears in the news should not merit its mention, as I still cant see any relation to caste struggle here. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a balanced view is required, then why not put up something that is actually related to article and has some element of caste struggle. What about this in a balanced manner [[2]] in place of what is already there. I request you to present some mention of real caste struggle and not crimes by (substitute your favorite word here dalit/ brahmin/ upper caste etc). Cheers ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about removing the section in question.ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of amusing.--D-Boy 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HKelkar, I am short of words to describe the wrongs. There are some websites which allege that Hindu religion has it's roots in christainity. This is sufficiently irritating. Some anonymous editer included these (external) website links in the article. Which I removed. The same found place on talk page, seeking permission for inclusion in article by the anonymous editor. I removed these links, as through subversive means, the links were placed for viewing who view the article. The discussion for inclusion was clearly opposed by all. I removed the links from talk page. There was no objection from anyone. After some days Abecedare restored the links. I remove them, he reverts and give me a 3RR notice. Then, he goes for admin community views. I fail to express and object to the subversive way. I fail to understand the intention of Abecedare. Should the Wikipedia policy conveniently interpreted and used for nefarious activities?

swadhyayee 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hkelkar, I saw the article and the latest edits. We must try to constructively discuss the changes and work on improving the article. Currently, it looks in a mess. The section on Hindutva views and Dalit views is unreferenced and POV. Do all Dalits have the same view. And whose view is it actually. I think, we need a cited historical scholarly view.

Anyway, we'll talk more on that. I have repaired the e-mail link. It's working now. Mail me. Bye for now. Keep rockin' --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Wikipedia:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [[3]][reply]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you. NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]