User talk:Deepak/Archive navigation
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
|
Thanks. Keep up the good work. :) freestylefrappe 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
Check History of Hinduism out. You might like to contribute.
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
आपकी मदद के लिये हम आपके आभारी हैं
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)