User talk:Deepak~enwiki/archive3

User talk:Deepak/Archive navigation

Thanks

Hi Deepak:
Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. Was just 4 post away from messaging you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Incman

What on earth does IncMan mean? :D PS it would be nice if you archive your talk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, IncMan is a fictional super-hero character created by me. He looks, walks and smells like Superman but instead of saving the world, this super-hero improves Wikipedia. Jokes apart, as suggested I've archived my talk. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Minaret pic

Sorry for reincluding that one minaret photo; I wasn't aware of its copyright status. Very nice pic; shame to lose it; Mark Richards should know better. –Hajor 04:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the minaret concerned has a unique architecture. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi! I just noticed you overlinked some words in the Nepal article. The current policy is to link only the first use of the word. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kashmir

Once again we come to this article. First of all, the reason the POV tag with reason was added is upon request by Jules LT.

Secondly I want you to make something very clear: do you really think the article is unbiased? Because you actually wanted it for an featured article. Frankly, you don't even have to go past the first line in the article before finding out the bias:"Jammu and Kashmir has been the target of a campaign of terrorism and militancy propagated against India by all sides of the conflict."

Are you telling me that out of over 100,000 kashmiris killed India had nothing do with it? India isn't committing terrorism against India (as shown by the quote), it is committing it against Kashmiris. It is absurd to say that India is a peacemaker in the region because that basically what the article is trying to say; "The evil Islamic terrorists vs. the peace-loving Indian military." There are numerous sources which indicate state and military terrorism committed by India against Kashmiris, human rights violations and massacres of entire villages by Indian "security".

If we are going to cover the war crimes committed by India in the region, why don't we just deny the holocaust while we are at it?

Therefore I propose that we do a complete rewrite of the article. You, me and other editors who can represent Kashmiri, Pakistani, and indian view. That way we can eliminate the bias from the article. How about it? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Indian Army

I can see your biased views have gotten the best of you. I have got the same info from Reuters with figures which WERE listed if you go back a few pages in the edit section but somehow has gotten changed... Seems like you have TOO much time to spare but I do not, as I have a life, and labs in the morning. - Anankinskywalker

Terrorism

Why don't you give me a source which says that separatists killed more civilians than the Indian army? You and I both know that is not true. Almost anyone who knows history will tell you that. It is also known that in the early stages of the occupation of currently Indian-claimed Kashmir, Kashmiris were blindfolded and shot in rows in their villages by the Indian army. These were not individual troops doing this, these were troops under orders to do it. I realize that it is a shame that this happened, but please accept the facts first. There are very few separatists as opposed to army troops, using separatism as an excuse is not going to help anything, it will only whitewash. The article pretty much blames the separatists for everything. Support of US occupation has planted a government that goes with anything the US wishes anything the US wants to do illegally. Accepting the occupation in Iraq shows that you see the same elements in the ccupation in Kashmir. This further shows that you know very little about all sides of the story and your view is one-sided. The kashmiri government in occupied regions will not take action, they are under Indian military rule. That's like saying that the Prime minister of Iraq comes out on to the streets, where thousands of US troops are patrolling, in order to condemn them! Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 09:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information, my friend who constantly talks about the atrocities committed in Kashmir, is an Indian historian that I live next door to. He has studied this conflict for a long time. I also have a Pakistani friend where I work, but he is not as obsessed with this issue, but he does know a lot about it. I just wanted to tell you this before you excuse my Pakistani friends of trying to "brainwash me". Hopefully we can still work to NPOV the article in the future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Pakistan

I started a short article, not quite a stub, on Terrorism in Pakistan. Any input or info you could provide would be appreciated. freestylefrappe 14:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Lenin & Stalin

Comrade Idleguy found your contributions to Indian military related articles to be worthy of THE medal. Idleguy 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind an ex-Hero of the Soviet Union instead of the regular ex-Hero of Socialist Labor that's normally conferred upon.

Paramilitary

In view of some of the preceding comments on this page, I assume you didn't really intend to put the Border Security Force in the "extra-judicial" (= nut-case) section of Paramilitary. I've moved it up to the "paramilitary police" section. --Red King 16:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:State terrorism

What was added to the Pakistan section was POV because it was linking various events to Pakistan most of which were unrelated to state terrorism. Your edits on the Indian section however are completely focused on so-called accusations by Pakistan. Why are you still denying this? Please don't think for an instant that slowly you can try to whitewash history and these articles. You said only Pakistan accuses. What happened at Amritsar? Thousands of sikhs were killed. What happened in Assam, thousands of christians were killed. What happened and is happening in Kashmir? I think you already know. Please don't try to rewrite history or try to cover massacres. I bet all these people killed by India have atleast some complaints. Also see the link I gave you on talk:terrorism in Kashmir. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, just wondering, are you actually trying to make me lose interest in South Asia? Because recently I have been seeing a side of India which is giving a very negative impression. I suggest you drop the personal bias against me and we can edit as neutral editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Surpression by killings is state terrorism. What is hard to believe? Maybe you regard all kashmiris who oppose India as terrorists, but that is certainly not the case. Why are you making up this nonsense? Is that how biased your media has become? What happened in Assam and to the Sikhs is exactly similar to what is happening in Kashmir. If you continue to revert despite the sources I am giving you, I will truly ask for arbitration in this case. It is absolutely ridiculous how you are rewriting history. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess in that case the entire world except Pakistan has become biased. Never before have I heard India being tagged as a state-terrorist nation. And yr media! Oh you mean Dutch media ha. And go ahead, ask for arbitaration, we'll then decide whose acting stupid here --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell me one question: if west Pakistani army surpressed east Pakistani's during the liberation war then is that state terrorism? Btw, I am not asking for arbitration yet because I am assuming good faith and giving you a chance to realize what you are saying. Please answer question.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes that was state-terrorism because West pakistani army killed civilians while they were performing peaceful demonstrations under govt orders. The seperatists in Punjab, Kashmir and NE are well known for targetting the Indian Army. Killing yr enemy before enemy kills you is justified act --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Do you realize what you are saying? Indian army (under govt orders) marches into Amritsar and kills thousands of Sikhs, is that not the same? "Killing yr enemy before enemy kills you is justified act" - you must be one of the most biased editors I have met. So thousands of Indians were murdered under the orders of their own government and that is not state terrorism??? No one is saying TERRORIST STATE, please don't change the subject. State terrorism and TERRORIST states are two very different things. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for covertly admitting your error and I am glad you realize this. The Pakistani liberation war was the same. Done because of orders by the government in power, just like you say the INC caused the massacres in India. Hopefully now we can start anew and work together to make articles better? Let's leave state terrorism as it is then, okay? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yr welcome. But Im still not very pleased w/ the section concerned. 1st because it gives a wrong image of India and 2ndly its inaccurate. apart from certain human rights groups, none of them have alleged India for carrying state-terrorism. If you can prove it, then thats a diff case. and Im sorry for my outburst --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on man. You know the section is fine as it is. Ofcourse, it t will give a slight negative image of India (just like every other country on that page), I don't doubt that, but the material is certainly accurate and human rights groups and victim groups are sufficient for state-terrorism as that is what the section says. When a country performs certain actions, it is responsible for the blame. So let's leave it as is for the sake of argument. Hopefully you will also be more neutral on articles with idleguy involved as he has yet to realize this. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How about just Human rights organizations instead of "some" or "many"? Doesn't really make difference with some or many. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well what does "some" mean and what does "many" mean? Tell you what, I will change for both India and Pakistan and you can take a look. Tell me if you don't like it. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Check it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I just noticed you did a revert to Terrorism in Kashmir. What was your reasoning? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir here refers to the entire region and not just Indian-controlled Kashmir, so saying J&K becomes independent or Kashmir becomes independent is the same thing. Also, the chenab formulae was 1st proposed by an Pakistani minister decades ago. If you have a look at his proposal, it was same thing as kashmir joining Pakistan which is also mentioned. Besides Chenal formulae was just a proposal made by any other guy. The matter had come up just once between the 2 countries or in other words it wasnt very significant. Tx --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Next time please give your reasons in edit summary. Also, I have done 2 minor edits to maintain uniformity and clarity. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Indian subcontinent earthquakes list Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

My RFA

Thanks. Keep up the good work. :) freestylefrappe 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Deepak good to see another Indian around here. Deepak my edits to the Terrorism in Kashmir page focused on cleaning it up and making it more neutral. I have to say that it is a really mixed up article.

Now for the changes which are really simple

I changed the name of the first title from "Kashmir flashpoint" to "Militancy and military" because it actually tells what is being discussed. In that section instead of having a big summary on militant groups which by the way is already written above that section, I added both sides of the story including the pak side of the story so that we can have a nice, not messy section that people can read easily. I discussed the military build up by both countieres.

I also changed the large section on Lashkar e toiba because it is not needed on this page. I summarised it later in the article by joining it to the Ethnic cleansing section in which I also added human rights allegations of India and allegations for Lashkar e toiba and other militant gangs. So basically all I did was take the section that said "groups waging jihad" and "ethnic cleansing" and joined them together to create a nice clean section tht shows both sides of the coin and stops going into religious stuff. Also instead of saying "Who are these terrorists?" I said "Who is responsible?" because then we can put both side of story. I also changed "the major terrorist incedents" to "Violent acts" because some of the things aren't very major.

Aside from that I only added numbers of people killed and changed a lot of the stuff that said "terrorist" to separatist to make neutral. One of the other editors, anonymous editor, also liked my editing saying that it really cleaned up the article or something like that.

Hope you can agree too with my edits friend? I only want to help with the article by making it neutral, so that stupid tag can be removed and also easy to read. If you look closely, you can see that the article is very much the same but it is more encyclopedia type. I spent a lot of time on the editing because I really want to represent a good view of both sides. Can you accept my version and please tell me what you find wrong with it because I will spend as much time as you want working on it. By the way where in India are you from? --Madhev0 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at it, my largest edit was combining the "Groups waging Jihad" and "Ethnic cleansing" into one. The rest of the edits were small. --Madhev0 00:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I just hate that tag. OK 1st regarding the Kashmir Flashpoint para: I dont see anything wrong with the sentence Despite a large number of casualties, the militants are still believed to number thousands rather than hundreds. Several new militant groups have also emerged. Also one must also take into account that the article is not terrorism and the Kashmir dispute in general. So the more info on the militants the better it is. I wanted to make one point while writing this article: it should be more on the separatists, militants and kashmiris and as less as possible on Pakistan and India. Adding Indian and Pakistani views is appropiate if the article was on the present dispute over Kashmir. What Pakistan has to say regarding Indian troops build up in the region is issueless in this article. I suggest that best way of making this article balanced is by expressing the views of the Kashmiri separatists and India. This terrorism is in India and not in Pakistan! Lashkar is one of the most prominent groups. The info on Lashkar was basically on their ideology through which an attempt was made to create a broader picture of the militant groups on whole. Again, I really liked yr idea and it just needs some minor formatting. Sorry about the revert though. Unfortunately I have to go somewhere right now and wouldnt be able to discuss about the issue further today. Catch you tommorow. I'm not an Indian anymore (dutch citizen), my parents are. They belong to Jammu :). Cheers and keep up the good work! --[[User:Deepak gupta|User:Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता]] 00:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you said. I think the issue is both Indian and also Pakistani, so that is the only difference. I think that the troop build up is a very big deal for both sides because my bro is currently in the army and Pakistan and India are both involved in the separatism issue. I am going to change the article to put in some of the edits you suggested. Thank you very much. :) --Madhev0 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Hinduism

Check History of Hinduism out. You might like to contribute.

Help requested: Sabotage on Jainism page

दीपकजी,

आपकी मदद की आवश्यकता है

Someone has been sabotaging the Wikipedia page on "Jainism" . He put the note about "deletion" on it, and then he has put the note about "speedy deletion", with no place to contest that. He is apparently able to edit the page without getting his login or IP address recorded, but I belive it is a person at 199.79.168.160.

What can be done? I can't figure out what should be done?

Yashwant K. Malaiya

दीपकजी, हार्दिक धन्यवाद

आपकी मदद के लिये हम आपके आभारी हैं

Malaiya

Thanks

Thank you for your display of semi-impartiality. It will help towards the future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)