Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 27 January 2007

Send E-mail

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Click Here To Leave A New Message

Archives 1 • 2

Welcome!

Hello Unre4L! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NinaEliza 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please sign messages on Talk India page

Please sign your messages with four tildes ~~~~ Unsigned messages cause a lot of confusion because they appear to be part of later signed messages; consequently, users address their replies to the wrong person, as I did on the Talk India page. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. I look forward to receiving references from you on the Talk India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message

Thanks for your last message on the Talk India page. As I said there, I don't disagree with your observation. Personally, if it were up to me, I would write, " ..., IVC, in what is now Pakistan and Western India," (in the history section) but because brevity is needed on the India page (it is already bloated) and because all kinds of Indian chauvinists will jump right in and change it back to suit their personal world views, we have to be content with "Indian subcontinent."

BTW, a historian on harrappa.com--Mark Kenoyer, of the University of Wisconsin, is someone I respect. Thanks for pointing out harrappa.com, I look forward to reading Mark's essay there one of these days ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

from Nadirali

Hello,I got your message,but I unfortunately didnt get any link.I'd love to help Pakistani site in anyway I can.

I also advice you against posting on talk pages if there are too many Indian users as they usually like to gang up.

Please do send me the link and please help keep the Pakistan articles safe from the vandals.Also contribute to the Pakistan related articles as much as you can.

Please also write to user:Szhaider. He's a proud Pakistani wikipedian and would just love to hear from someone like you. Szhaider has recently engaged in edit wars to protect all refference to the IVC from falling into the History of India page.He's also stood up to some biased Indian administrator threatening to block him.I have offered my verbal support to him and your adding your support will just give him more courage.

Thanx alot for contacting.Regards.Nadirali 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I got the link

Okay thanx alot for the link.I also again warn you from engaging in any conversation with some of the Indian wikipedians when raising the issue of Pakistani history,And watch out for user:HeklerHekler.He's full of tricks and extremely provokitive.Do not converse with him on this subject.he almost tricked me into getting blocked.

Also dont forget to contact user:Szhaider.He'd just love to hear from another proud Pakistani like you.He's also working hard to protect all reference of Pakistan's ancient history from falling into Indian hands.

Anyways thanks for the link and I'll see how I can contribute to the site.Also keep in close touch with other Pakistani wikipedians if you can.All the best.Nadirali 05:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Question

Hi Unre4L, I saw the discussion at Talk:History_of_India#indian_hijacking_of_Pakistan.27s_history and posted a question for you which I'll hope you will answer. Thanks a lot Gizza 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer posted Unre4L

Panini

Hey, I appreciate that you feel strongly about references to the "ancient Indian subcontinent" (indeed, your user page makes it clear that that's your raison d'être so to speak). But I'd like to point out that you violated WP:3RR on Panini in the last two days, and that continuing to revert will result in your getting blocked. Instead of edit-warring, try and build consensus on the talk page. Good luck. --Xiaopo (Talk) 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three-revert rule at Pāṇini. Please refer to: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Unre4L reported by Bakaman (Result: 24 hours). More information on the three-revert-rule can be found here: WP:3RR. You are welcome to return after your block has been completed. -- Samir 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

advise

Unre4L,perfectly I understand how you feel about Pakistan's history being robbed as I feel the same way too.

However,I discourage you from responding to wikipedia:trolls.Do not respond to Bakaman's provokitive comments. Bakaman already provoked me into getting blocked once and was also told to stop being so provokitive by an administrator.

Also,I think readers on that discussion page(Indian,Pakistani or others)will be able to see that someone cares by reading the topic and discussion. And just for the fact that we brought up the subject,it will definately give readers something to think about.The whole point of brining that up was it brings it to people's attention. This is a first positive step on our side.

But I also warn you to abide by the rules and not carry out any violations,as that harms nobody but you.

Szhaider has attempted to remove Indian tags from the IVC and other south asian history articles,only resulting in an edit war.Not only that,but he was threatened of being reported by a biased administrator.He is now currently in the process of creating a "History of south asia" article to make it more "neutral" based on the demands of other wikipedians.

If you want to try and help out or state any objections to Pakistani-related articles,then you can bring it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/Category_talk:Pakistani_Wikipedians or talk to Szhaider about it.

But refrain from responding to Bakaman's "Pakistani textbooks","anti-Hindu" or "the Indus was a Hundu civilization" or lectures on the persicution of Hindus or any of that non-sense.

I'll talk to Bakaman seprately regarding her comments if you want me to.She's already been told by administrator:tariqabjotu to stop,but if it continues,don't repond.Instead,copy and paste these comments on administrator tariqabjotu's talk page as he's already warned her from continuing her behaviour.Responding will only get you into more trouble.

I hope my advise proves useful.

Regards.Nadirali 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The problem Nadirali and Unre4L, is that you have a misconception of what Misplaced Pages is for. You may feel that Pakistan's history is being robbed, but reflecting what you feel is not what this project is here for. Misplaced Pages is specifically here to reflect what the consensus of scholars have written. Please read and think about Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. You don't need to turn everything into an us vs them. Just do good research and add facts to articles to help them reach NPOV, not your POV. - Taxman 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats the whole problem Taxman. The stuff I am arguing about doesnt have ANY sources. Apart from hindu sources. I asked them about one single source which said that they guy was ancient Indian. They couldnt give me any. Their only comeback was Pakistan didnt exist in 1947. Why am I getting the feeling you are refusing to understand aswell? User:Unre4L

Your statements above conflict with each other. But in any case, if the fact is that there are only "Hindu" sources, then I'm sorry you'll have to accept that. If you can't provide sources for your position, you can't keep reverting your edits in. That is Misplaced Pages policy and for a reason. But you're really missing the more important point about Misplaced Pages not being here to promote your views. If you don't come to accept that you're going to have a hard time here. - Taxman 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 146.87.193.90 lifted, since the original block has since expired. Sorry about that! Request handled by: Luna Santin 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

==I've added an (overdue) welcome template at the top of your talk page. I hope you find it useful.NinaEliza 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my snooping; your page is now on my watchlist. First of all, beautiful taxobox, and lovely message. Second, I'm afraid your link:

http://www.pakhub.info

doesn't work. At least it didn't work for me. However, it's a good and appropriate thing to have on your user page, in my opinion. It's always a good thing to take dialogue or debate off Misplaced Pages as much as possible. Thanks for that. NinaEliza 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have posted this. The domain will start working later today. I just bought the domain today and need a little time setting it up. User:Unre4L

That's wonderful - out of your own pocket, you are willing to do this great thing. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes. For example, ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces will get you NinaEliza 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC). The "tilde" should be located to the right of the "1" on the numeric portion of your keyboard. If I'm telling you something you already know, please forgive me:).NinaEliza 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thx for informing me. I always signed my posts by writing out the link to my talk page. Unre4L 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakhub

Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?

I will need a second opinion on that. We have had our arguments regarding Pakistans history, and obviously you will be the first person close this down. Sorry, but you have already shown your ability to discuss maturely before, so I want to talk to some non Indian member of this board.

You might want to go back to your hinduunity forums and inform them about this so they can try to spam my forum again. Unre4L 21:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakhub was speedy deleted due to comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakhub (a cursory look tells me that not all who commented were Indian or Pakistani, so the delete comments were not all nationality-motivated). If you wish to appeal the deletion, please make a request on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Kimchi.sg 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the "discussion" and it seemed a bit short to me.Please note it's a non-for profit site.Why were we not consulted of this?How harmful is it to consult an editor(s) before vandalizing their article(s)? Nadirali 04:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

good source

Check out this Source.It seems to be from a non-South Asian writer. http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/name.html

Regards.Nadirali 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

barn star for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For struggling to protect our history by basing them on facts. Nadirali 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

In retrospect that "english" remark was a personal attack and i apologise. I'm usually not very emotive but just that i feel you guys are indulging in overt revert warring and cabalism. As for tags, if you dont give valid reasons and references to your tags, they will be deletd. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you do apologise, but striking out the warning and labelling it bogus, is not exactly a good sign when apologising. Your comments deserved a warning, and by editing the warning, you could get another warning. Unre4LITY 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pak templates

Hey man please dont forget to add Pakistani templates to your userpage.Stay on the categories of Pakistani wikipedians.Best regards.Nadirali 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Regarding the Pakhub article, have you read WP:WEB? May you please give an argument based on WP:WEB on why it should stay. Please respond on my talk page and only answer these two questions. I am willing to discuss this since you are obviously disappointed that the forum you created can't have an article on Misplaced Pages. If I still disagree with you after the discussion, you can request the page to be re-created to another administrator who has no connections with India or Pakistan whatsoever. This is the list Misplaced Pages:List of administrators. I am sorry if I have insulted you and hope that we can set all of the disagreements we had in the past. Thank you and have a good day. Gizza 08:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

your recent edits

Hi - looking over many of your comments to and about other editors (including the report on me at ANI), I must say that is causing disruption. While your warning to Ambroodey was justified, I strongly urge you to follow the same standards. Please discuss and edit with a cool head and respectful attitude. Making false accusations and disrespectful insinuations, as well as pushing your POV in a hard fashion is unacceptable. Please go over - WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV. Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ambroodey's behavior is far from acceptable - I've already warned him. But neither of you is doing enough to resolve this debate properly and as per the dispute resolution process. The reason I warned you is that you are skating on very thin ice when you start making insinuations about nationality, religion, etc. Even your vehement contention of using "South Asia" instead of "India," and wanting to laugh that there is no article on ancient Indian history, are comments that anybody with less patience would translate as personal attacks and POV-pushing.

I do not agree with your perception that I'm "with them" (whoever you mean by "them"). I don't feel any need to defend myself but it will perhaps help to point out that I agreed on the ban given to user:Hkelkar by ArbCom. It does not help you to make accusations against me on ANI if you don't understand the policies on basis of which Szhaider, Nadirali and Siddiqui were blocked. The main problem is that you are replicating their behavior, so I strongly urge you to cool down and change the way you go about dealing with others. Rama's arrow 17:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block

You have been blocked for persistent incivility, disruptive editing on articles and their talkpages, harsh and constant POV-pushing. This block is enforced on the basis of WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rama's arrow 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits? What edits are you referring to? I never re-edit a page, or take part in edit warring. I mostly put my points across on talk pages, backed up with sources. This ban is as unfair as anything gets. Indian users get away with openly insulting me, and you are banning me for...well I dont know, could you at least put some sources here? Unre4LITY 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Your 1-week block of Users Szhaider, Nadirali, and Unre4L

Dear Unre4L, For your information, I posted the following on Rama's Arrow's talk page:

Dear Rama's Arrow, As someone who has done battle on occasion with all three users, I nonetheless feel that your recent week-long blocks of them, especially the latter two, are a little heavy-handed and over the top. I feel that they should have been given more warning, and perhaps slapped with 24-hour, or 48-hour or even 3-day blocks first. I went back and re-read WP:NPA, especially the following, which I'm sure you well know:

In light of the above caution, I actually went through Unre4L's "contributions" log between the time you gave him a warning on his talk page and the time you issued a 1-week block. Although, I am sure you have your reasons for blocking him/her, I aipersonally couldn't find anything that disruptive, and feel that the 1-week block is extreme punishment for the crime at hand. I am not asking for your reasons, but simply that two neutral administrators (like say Dbachmann, Nichalp (if he is not too busy), Saravask, Ragib, or Aksi_great) review the blocks, especially those of users Nadirali and Unre4L. Thanks! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope someone follows my post up with a review of your block. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly dont know what I have been banned for. I never Edit war with anyone. Please explain my ban. I dont even remember making any contributions between his warning and the ban. And, this is a shared IP, so I would appreciate if someone got it unbanned asap. Unre4LITY 15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the {{unblock}} template to request an unblock; you may also want to contact the admin who blocked you through the "E-mail this user" link to the left of his or her user page. Thanks, Tangotango (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked very unfairly. The same comment was used to warn and block me. The comment was "You dont get to change anything anyway", in response to a ridiculous claim by another user. Please read the discussion below, and you will find out how another user insulted me, edit warred and disrupted, but got away with it. I on the other hand got a weeks ban for nothing.

Decline reason:

This block is justified, although probably overlong. I would support unblocking of this user if they would agree to take their complaints to the Mediation Committee as a formal attempt at dispute resolution, but until then, it should stand. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

Honestly. What is this about? I am so shocked that an admin would abuse his powers like that.
User:AMbroodEY gets away with comments like these.
"First i'd do take additional English lessons."
"By your dumb logic."
"AN article doesnt become disputed just because you get nationlistic epileptic fits, every now and then."
And I get banned for what you call POV pushing? I put my argument across backed up with sources and facts. Not only do you ignore them, you ban me.
This is clearly breaking Wiki rules, and I really wish a neutral admin to review this case.
--Unre4LITY 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I was stupid enough to have a go at Unre4L and his mindless POV-pushing at an article and promptly apologised to him... ... I really see no point in odefying this! Do you want a written apology or something? Amey Aryan DaBrood 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No. But do you think this is fair. I am getting banned because of you. And you got away with insulting me. This is unbelievable. Unre4LITY 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You certainly werent banned because of me. Your ban is result of your own actions. Perhaps you should reflect upon your behaviour over past 2 months... Amey Aryan DaBrood 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking admin's response (from user talk:Fowler&fowler)

Hi Fowler - lemme begin by clarifying that I have absolutely no problem with criticism. I knew the blocks would concern others, so I am prepared to discuss at length and accept criticism.

(1) Szhaider has been guilty of violating WP:NPA by attacking Indian and Hindu editors, presenting them as a perpetual cabal. Szhaider describes himself as a "Pakistani nationalist" and has made some comments to other users in which he demeans Hindi and Indian history. Nadirali - , , , , , , , - and Unre4L - , , , - are guilty of making similar accusations, especially through repeated subtle insinuations on article and user talkpages. The problem demanded blocking because of the wide-range of articles in which they have repeatedly pushed their POV - Panini, History of Pakistan, Pakistani nationalism, History of India, Iqbal, Jinnah, Abrar-ul-Haq, Doosra. These editors have repeatedly insisted and insinuated that Indian editors have no "right" to edit Pakistani subject articles and should seek the approval of Pakistani editors before inserting any information - , .

(2) I am an Indian and Hindu, no doubt. However, I have always worked for Misplaced Pages, and I don't see any reason for me not to lay down the law on these editors just because I am a part of a demographic with which they have a conflict of interest. If such a norm is to be observed, a vast majority of Christian heritage administrators cannot then interfere in disputes involving them, can they? I was involved personally with Szhaider on a dispute on Iqbal, but I blocked him only after he violated WP:3RR, which is an explicit and unsubjective rule - additionally, there were plenty of violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, which to me justified violating the norm that one does not block based on 3RR an editor with whom he/she was involved.

(3) These editors qualify for blocking under the rules for a disruptive influence on articles and other editors - A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages.

Why is their behavior "disruption?" Apart from expressly violating WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, it is because of their repeated accusations against Indian and Hindu editors, attacks on the Indian point of view and insinuations that there is something intrinsically wrong with it and the editing of Indian editors. I see absolutely no effort in way of respecting other people's arguments, providing various sources and proper debating, or seeking mediation - the editors in question keep repeating their POV again, again, again and again - , - while accusing others of not respecting their POV.

Does one expect that Indian editors will put up with this forever and not feel a need to retaliate? Will this not start a massive range-war over South Asian articles that will bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute? I just don't want this to happen - as far as warning Indian/Hindu editors in question, I have already warned user:AMbroodEY and user:Bakasuprman and repeatedly urged them to be civil and work through Misplaced Pages policies.

I have been accused by all the 3 editors in question of being pro-Hindu, pro-Indian. Such type of flak almost every admin has to put up with, so I am not too concerned. But I would object if someone argues that I should not have acted just because I fit the demographic these editors have a problem with. I will have no objection whatsoever if Indian/Hindu editors are blocked if their conduct is disruptive.

(4) As for prior warnings and attempts to resolve disputes, I have repeatedly drawn attention to Misplaced Pages talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion - where a group of South Asian editors addressed the very issue these editors were waging a POV-pushing war on. Agreed that there is no formality about this discussion's outcome, but where is the kind of effort on part of the editors in question to resolve this issue in the same spirit and non-disruptive fashion that the dispute resolution process demands?

(5) Nichalp observes that I should have reported on WP:ANI, which is correct - I admit my mistake there.

(6) To add, I decided on a 1-week duration because there is a need in cases of chronic disruptive behaviors to have a suitably long period of block, which will allow a proper period of non-editing and permit the editor to discuss and reflect. I feel that WP:POINT/WP:NPA/WP:NPOV violations are serious indeed, but a block more than 1 week would not have been justified.

I am completely willing to continue this debate to help resolve this issue. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now,Now,Now just a minute!What's this tag-team edit war against Szhaider you,Bakman and anapum pulled off if it's not disruption? Are remarks like from Bakaman not racist? Just look at what Bakaman and deeprivia plan on writing . And look at comments like this .Comparing us to the Nazis.Are you sure we're not dealing with racists? Szhaider gets harrassed by Bakman and all you give him is while Szhaider gets .Same thing with Unre4L who gets harrassed by dabrood and all dabrood gets is wheras Unre4L gets . The only guilty people are you RA and your fellow racists Bakaman,Dabrood and all. Corrupt admins like you have given wikipedia a bad name all over the internet,which I will also prove on WP:ANI. Sure you can find Indian POV pusher warriors.Just look at the history of the articles and you'll see tag-team edit wars everywhere.You can find racist articles and comments against Pakistani users everywhere.I just provided a few links as mere examples of hundreds more. You hear that Fowler&Fowler?He wants to retaliate for something he and his pals started. Misplaced Pages is not my life but I will make sure justice is found this time. user:nadirali

P.S. - I have no objection if any admin decides to lift the blocks. In the past, I have always asserted that all matters are best resolved without blocking. If there is such a possibility, I would never stand in the way. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least lift the ban from this Shared IP. I will keep my contributions to my own talk page until the ban is lifted. You have my word. And it would be really nice if you could give me a link to the exact comment I got banned for. Thank you. Unre4LITY 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Under (1), I have provided several diffs in which you speak disparagingly of India/Indians (how India "doesn't yet have a history article on Misplaced Pages"). Most poignantly, you said that you are reclaiming that which "India has ripped off" the history of Pakistan. Your comments on the talkpages of Panini, History of India, History of Pakistan and others are confrontational and incivil. Your last comment on Talk:Panini included a claim that "you don't get to decide this anyway." This behavior pattern is evidenced throughout December 2006 and this January. Another thing I felt was very, very wrong (and I admit I could be feeling this way perhaps out of prejudice) - you kept insinuating that Indian editors have "ripped off" Pakistani history, have insulted Pakistanis by claiming them as part of "ancient India," but showed no respect or courtesy in continously asserting that "India did not exist" and all of conventional history that identifies "India" as bogus and inherently against Pakistan. You felt insulted at something you alleged Indian editors of doing, but didn't see anything wrong in provoking others in the same way. You'd have a hard time proving that Indian editors have been focused on rigging up Pakistan articles, but your own comments are proof enough of your disrespect of India and Indian editors. My block of you is intended as a means to enlighten you to considerably change the way you discuss these problems. Your POV-pushing to avenge the "ripping off" of Pakistani history is not welcome on Misplaced Pages - see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Rama's arrow 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking.You tell Fowler&Fowler that Indian editors should retaliate.The pot calls the kettle black.User:Nadirali

Please tell me you are joking me.
You gave me a warning Yesterday, and then you pick statements from weeks ago and ban me using them?
The only comment I made after you gave me a warning was "you don't get to decide this anyway.", and that was to a user who mindlessly said Pakistan has no right over their own Hindu history.
I got a weeks ban for this one comment? Besides, I disagree with the articles, and no matter how polite I am, they always throw insults at Pakistanis or me. But obviously those comments are ignored. I havent used any offensive words whatsoever, I was simply putting my ideas across, and this is what you have banned me for.
Unre4LITY 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I too wish you were joking. Again, you did not get a block for that "1 comment." You got the block because of a disrespectful, POV-pushing campaign that has played out over December and January - please see all the diffs I've provided. When I warned you, how did you respond? You accused me of siding with those whom you see as your opposition. A close examination of your edits forced me to conclude that there was a disturbing pattern that was not going away. I will be very happy to see this wider POV dispute being resolved peacefully and without a resort to blocking. If Hindu, Indian editors are blocked for disruption, I really cannot disagree. Rama's arrow 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just think of the gravity of your comments about Indians "ripping off" Pakistani history, of "India never existed," of how it is amusing to you that "India has no history article on Misplaced Pages." All of these are offensive to a nation, are provocative and irresponsible. With your own admission that you are on a mission to revert what you see as Indians "ripping off" Pakistani history, how can I not reprimand you for disruption? Rama's arrow 20:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My comments might not have been the most peaceful. But what else can you expect when Indian users ignore academic sources which I provide and revert information according to their own POV.
I will however ease my comments to a more acceptable level.
This still doesnt change the fact that you are banning me for the same comments you warned me for yesterday. That is not allowed.
--Unre4LITY 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have to do our level best. I too have often felt frustrated by the conduct of Pakistani editors on Iqbal and Jinnah, but I've learnt to improve my own conduct. I expect you and the Indian editors to do the same. And don't tell me that its a no-recourse situation for you - to request outside help, you could have filed an WP:RFC or gone to Misplaced Pages:Mediation cabal. Warnings are to be respected. You can't accuse the person who warned you of bias, adhere to the same behavior and expect the warning to "protect" you. However, any means of resolution should be preferred over blocking. If you commit here to do the best you can to adhere to the spirit of Misplaced Pages policies, be entirely respectful and positive in your comments to others, I will lift your block - trust me, I have no desire to block others. I also admit that there are other parties also responsible for fueling this wider conflict. If you find yourself unable to cope, I strongly urge you to seek recourse in mediation or an RfC - that is the right way. Rama's arrow 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What about User:AMbroodEY. He got 2 warnings for insulting me, which he simply called bogus, and he is always disruptive since he never has anything productive to add to my arguments. Could you at least give him a warning, since he doesnt take mine seriously? --Unre4LITY 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to repeat myself? I have already told you that I've warned him. If he violates WP:NPA again, I or another admin will be justified in blocking him. But unless you (and him) are willing to WP:AGF and work with a fresh, positive attitude, it will only hurt Misplaced Pages - something no one else, admin or non-admin, can allow. Rama's arrow 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking... classic case of pot calling the kettle black. Those "two" warning were from none other than User:Unre4L which i maintain were uncalled for. As for disruptive behaviour allegations! Provide diffs or keep quiet. I have been here for over 2 years, made 1500 edits, edited 500 unique article and contributed substantially to two GA's... You for your part havent done anything other than removing Indian project tags from talk pages.

P.S Unre4L stop going to town over one remark i sincerely regret ever making... Amey Aryan DaBrood 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen mate. I have NEVER removed or added any tags (apart from 1 disputed tag). And your comments are always off subject and aimed at insulting me. I did provide you quotes. And you scored them out. Unre4LITY 21:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aite, both Unre4L and AMbroodEY - please be cool and don't keep posting ripostes, stoking fires. I would like to see both of you "earnestly" (not sarcastically!) apologize to the other - that's a suggestion I'd like you two to consider seriously. Both of you are guilty of offending the other - now either you can admit that your conduct needs significant improvement or you can take your feud outside Misplaced Pages. Rama's arrow 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This may help the situation. Rama's arrow 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Look dude i'm not even asking you to reciprocate... all i ask of you is to reflect upon your actions over the past month. We all have our biases. We all love our countries. And i respect you for loving yours. There are times when we feel compelled to "defend" an article. I suggest you review your POV. Perhaps reading Indian POV history or books by neutral and notable non-Subcontinental scholars could help. Also do read this article which i wrote ages ago... | How Indo-Pak rivalry is harming Misplaced Pages and perhaps click on a few google ads there maybe! ;) . Amey Aryan DaBrood 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow. Let me just tell you now. I think I have been banned extremely unfairly. I will pursue this.
None of my comments were ever half as bad or disruptive as AMbroodEYs.
AMbroodEY insulted my language, and my intelligence, and I never made any offensive remarks against anyone.
Unlike AMbroodEY, I never participated in any Edit wars.
Yet here we are. I am on a 1 week ban, he is not. And to add to that, you used the same comment to warn me and ban me.
If this is your definition of being a fair Admin, then I am not the only person who needs to make changes.
I will end this discussion as I am still waiting for another admin to comment on this matter. It has been nice talking to both of you.
Unre4LITY 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise you were banned for WP:NPOV and WP:POINT? Amey Aryan DaBrood 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont. I have been putting arguments backed up with sources for Wiki articles not being NPOV.
NPOV states "All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)"
But the problem is, I havent written any articles. 99% of my contributions belong to the talk pages. And your responses havent even been on topic let alone NPOV.
I mean, we have articles claiming, Lahore used to belong to Republic of India, and Republic of India existed in 1910.
I am sure you know which article I am talking about, and how false the above information is. I got a warning for speaking out against those statements. That would be the work of neutral admins of course.
--Unre4LITY 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw. I was banned for "disruption and POV-warring". Where one comment of mine was used for the the warning and ban. Unre4LITY 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go through Rama's arrow's comments and see why you have been blocked. I must ask you to stop making unsubstantiated allegations against me...

Cheers

Amey Aryan DaBrood 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take the word of the Block Log. Not his comments page.
Nice talking to you. Unre4LITY 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. what did you guys do?--D-Boy 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AMbroodEY insulted my intelligence, my language, Pakistani text books, edit warred, tag warred, caused disruptions. Which he got a warning for.
I made the following comment (to another wiki user): "You dont get to change anything anyway", and got a warning, immediately followed by a weeks ban.
Neutral Admins for life!!!
Unre4LITY 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop misrepresentintg the facts... i didnt edit war... i got a warning for that incivilty. You have nearly closed the door on reconciliation.. Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Dear Unre4L, In light of admin Peter Dodge's sensible advice above:

it would make sense for you to agree to a Mediation Committee resolution. Since the committee (I imagine) is well-versed in Misplaced Pages rules and procedures, it will help you in a constructive constructive way, and you won't have to worry about defending yourself here. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I agree Unre4LITY 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And after the block is removed, can you also ensure that you don't lose your cool for at least for a couple of days. Tintin 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Unrea4L, I think you need to take this up with Peter Dodge (or at least he would know how to proceed). Yes, Tintin's advice is well-taken. Remember Iqbal's lines:

All the best! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FAO User:Fowler&fowler

Since Pakistani users have been banned, Pakistan articles are now being edited by Bakaman, DaGizza and a few others, to include their own POV:
The history of Pakistan article has been unprotected, and Bakaman has added his own points in to satisfy his POV: ]
The "Doosra" article, which has now been protected by someone, After the changes had been made by DaGizza, who added in statements to fit his own POV: ]
I hope you can do something about this. Thank you. Unre4LITY 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Unre4L, Glad to see you've been unblocked! However, I would urge you not to get involved in edit wars right now. So, what if your "opponents," whoever they are, get away with a few "nickel and dime" edits. And so what, if from your perspective, a few admins are complicit? Don't worry about it. Don't worry about reverting or getting even right now. Remember, anything you can do on Misplaced Pages today, you can do next month. Think instead about making turning a Pakistan-related article into a Featured Article. I am happy to help you with it to the extent I can. How about working on Taxila and reading up on its Buddhist past as well as its present (location, climate, economy, demographics etc.)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

you have been unblocked

In accordance with your commitment to seek mediation and abstain from behavior that violates Misplaced Pages's policies, I have unblocked you. Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an edit summary you used to edit Doosra: Reverted POV based edits. This Articles doesnt have anything do to with Hindustani. Another POV based edit will be classed as Vandalism.

I'm sorry but this is precisely the sort of thing you're NOT supposed to do, especially after this unblock. This edit summary violates WP:CIVIL, especially as you're prepared to classify the "next person" as a vandal. You were unblocked only because you committed to asking for mediation of disputes, not to allow a return to your former ways. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I am all for dispute solving. But your translation for dispute solving is for me to ignore the article. I will ask for someone else to comment on that article if you wish.
I was banned for what you called pov warring. But please know the difference when I am telling other people my POV, or questioning other peoples POV.
Please ban me for a good reason next time. I havent edit warred or insulted anyone.
You wish me to solve disputes through the talk pages. Thats exactly what you banned me for last time.
If you think it was fair to ban me for a week, then AMbroodEY should have gotten a months ban for his comments. I dont like the fact that you threaten me. Fair enough you are an admin. But if I see someone else breaking the rules, I will report it.
--Unre4LITY 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is threatening you, nor saying that you should ignore any article. You explicitly promised above to seek proper dispute resolution - threatening to brand somebody's edits as "vandalism" is not the right way. And trust me, its YOU who has to take care and not give any admin a "good reason." Blocks are never meant as punitive measures, but protective. Rama's arrow (3:16) 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am taking your advise. Instead of arguing, I have asked for someone else to comment on this matter. And then we can sort this out with a "proper dispute".
All I was saying about the ban was, I dont wish to comment on the fairness of my ban, I just wish to say that if I really deserved a week for my comment, AMbroodEY deserved a month for his actions, which he didnt get I might point out. --Unre4LITY 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your lucky day

I'm not going to edit anything controversial for the next nine months and "push my POV" since I'll be on a semi-Wikibreak. Just to let you know, there were users (anti-Urdu) who wanted to remove the Urdu script off Bollywood articles and on Indian cities, when I supported keeping Urdu because I believe Hindi and Urdu are the same langauge just written differently. Regards Gizza 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. History of Pakistan protection

Hello and thank you for contacting me. Unfortunately, I may not revert Dangerous-Boy's last edit to History of Pakistan. As the administrator who protected the article, I am not to be involved in the dispute that resulted in its protection (as per the protection policy), which means that I may not take sides and decide which is the best version of the article to display while it is protected. Protection, in turn, does not endorse the version of the article where it's locked. You shall now bring your disagreements to the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus. Maybe a request for comment might help. Once the dispute is resolved, the article can be unprotected and new changes made. I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Doosra

OK, I'll leave doosra alone. What's in a name anyway? The ball will still spin from leg-to-off to a right hander whether it's Hindi or Urdu. Nobleeagle 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Just the point I was trying to tell you. ;)
Have a nice day. Unre4LITY 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Do you know if WP has a policy, or discussion page on Page names (esp. South Asian page names) and (how many) languages and scripts to represent them in. If there isn't one, it might be a good idea to start one and come to some consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know a good reason why the articles carry the local scripts and who it is supposed to benefit. Tintin 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its an Urdu word. The spelling in Urdu would show the correct pronunciation of the word. I was only commenting on the fact that when this cricket move was named, it had nothing to do with India, or Hindi. The Urdu/Hindi comparison belongs to the language page, not the cricket article. --Unre4LITY 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

List of islands of Pakistan

A tag has been placed on List of islands of Pakistan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Give me a chance. The article was created around 30 seconds ago. I am still trying to sort things out. Unre4LITY 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is really only one island listed there, and the category that already exists serves the purpose of the list (only 9-10 islands). Please remember that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will do my best, just give me a little time to get hold of this. These tags are a pain. :p
--Unre4LITY 07:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan RFC

Unre4L, I recently posted a comment on the RFC discussion at Talk:History of Pakistan. I would like to add one additional comment ... not on the topic but on the way the RFC is working. You say that you want people who had never been involved in the edit wars to comment, and yet when they do (as I did) you jump all over them and say that they obviously did not read all the discussion and edit warring. You are not going to get many people to comment that way. It comes across to outsiders as if you are not really looking for neutral outsider comments, but are actually looking only for comments that agree with your position. I'm not saying that you are actually doing this, only that this is how it appears to those you have asked to comment. Good luck with the article, and I hope your edit wars die off soon. Blueboar 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt referring to you mate. When I saw your comment, I agreed with you. I was referring to D-Boy, who caused the article to be locked in the first place. But if you notice, everyone in the discussion apart from you and me, are Indian, who have a history of vandalising Pakistan related articles. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Unre4LITY 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK... My error. thanks for replying. Blueboar 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Doosra NPOV?

Salaam bhai. I have responded to your comments on the Doosra talk page in order that the rest of the community may give thier input. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Khuda hafiz, Anupam 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To Unre4L, Nadirali, and Szhaider

Hi! You all might want to read my post: Talk:Saare_Jahan_Se_Achcha#Words_and_Meanings. I'm trying to work out an approach that will create less ill-will between India and Pakistan in controversial articles.

Nadirali and Szhaider, please hang in there until the end of your block. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India

I believe what's taught in Pakistani books is different to what is taught in the rest of the world. I have come to that conclusion because of the constant confusion of Pakistani editors on the Partition. I have sourced to back up the fact that Hindus were not really given a choice. Some managed to remain till the really deadly part of Partition was over, but Hindus and Sikhs were forced to leave that area. India is secular, and Gandhiji ensured that Muslims in India would remain by going on a fast to stop the fighting in India. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, the Hindus and Sikhs were forced to leave the region and I have presented facts to prove the point. The PML actually supported removal of what they called "kaffirs", unlike the INC, which was commited to secularism. Even the minority that remained, were placed away from politics through the fact that they could only vote on minority seats, meaning that Muslim parties will never have to worry about garnering minority votes. Nobleeagle 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, I have heard from Pakistanis that they believe India is not secular. But I have no intention of simply making Pakistan look bad. What you believe is my Indian bias is me trying to get rid of what I believe is Pakistani bias. Maybe that's why there are so many Indo-Pakistani disputes, maybe it's because one's neutral statements are interpreted as biased statements by the other. Anyway, I don't care about a tiny caption, more important is maintaining a healthy and friendly wiki-environ. Nobleeagle 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DaGizza also replied to your comments on my talk page, you may read them but I urge you not to get into a heated discussion with him. He has promised not to edit controversial articles. Note that while you may be angry with us Indians for presenting our so-called bias, Pakistanis denying the killing of Bengalis in Bangladesh and the forcing out of Hindus in East Punjab are as painful to people like DaGizza as denying the holocaust is to Jewish people. In fact, some members of Hindu communities that used to live around the East Punjab-Sindh area actually refer to it as a holocaust. But that should end the discussion. I've reverted myself. May peace reign on wiki. Regards. Nobleeagle 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1-week block

Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this - I have asked other admins to weigh in. Despite my repeated warnings, you have continued the pattern of behavior that got you blocked in the first place. Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing and actually getting somewhere. What rules did I break this time? Unwilling to accept other peoples opinions? I am the one providing sources, and your friends, who you refuse to ban no matter how much they insult me, refuse to even comment on my arguments. I guess this is another one of your unfair bans where I have no say.

Btw. I followed your advise and tried to settle the dispute. Bakaman, AmbroodEy and the others simply ignore my arguments and started to insult me AGAIN, while posting disruptive, and unrelated messages regarding PakHub. I hope you will do something about that aswell.
Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock. Your references are misleading

• Your references are misleading. You made it look like I was referring to people on Wiki. I was referring to "Indian Trolls" on PakHub.

• And please also mention how other users were disruptive and refused to comment on my argument but started changing the subject by falsely accusing me for having Jihaddist views, which were in fact posted on my site by "Indian Trolls".

• This is so misleading. My replies shouldnt be posted without the comments of people who I was replying to.

• The comments used against me were Facts Quoted From This WIKIPEDIA. I dont even see how you can quote them in order to ban me.

Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding my points (above) to the discussion you are having on the Admin Review Page. I think they should know your references are misleading. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that you were commenting in context of your activities on PakHub.info, but the problem is that your comments regarding whatever is going on on PakHub are strikingly similar to your statements regarding Indians ripping off Pakistani history here. You have made these kind of comments on multiple occasions at different talkpages. Rama's arrow (3:16) 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To add, this correlation opens the question if you realize that Misplaced Pages is purely an encyclopedia and that you cannot carry your agenda/activity going on at PakHub into Misplaced Pages. I'm concerned that your purpose and work with PakHub is coloring your edits to Misplaced Pages. Rama's arrow (3:16) 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are banning me for the wrong reasons here. I have no agenda. My arguments make sense to a lot of people, as long as they are willing to read them. I honestly cant believe you banned me for nothing again. I followed your advise, and tried to get the Disputes settled. I did not edit anything. Your friends werent willing to even take it seriously, and before any other comments got on the page, they had completely destroyed it.
So instead of warning them, you ban me, for something I did as you told me. Note, I did NOT insult anyone, and frankly I am getting tired of this.
You twisted my comments and put them out of context to ban me. And even though Neutral people dont agree with you, I am still banned.
I simply suggested renaming History of India article, since it contained the history of the entire subcontinent. I can see you are not happy with that, but try to ban the person who basically called be a "Jihadist".
And for the record, Sources and facts agree with my arguments, unlike the current situation of the article. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC) This is also my reply for the statements you posted on the admin review page.

I don't really see the point for this block. After one week, Unreal will come back onto Talk:History of India and say the same thing as he has said before, the one week block only causes a one-week break on the RFC, especially since it is, at the moment, just a civility and NPOV issue and that the user isn't editing articles at all, but just editing talk pages. I'm obviously not an admin so I can't do anything about it. I really honestly believe that Pakistani textbooks and history teachings are different to that of Indians, causing the complete disagreement on history and stuff like that, that's the source and we'll continue to see these problems in the future. Nobleeagle 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to face the fact that the articles are filled with Bias, and your own POV. I have provided valid facts and logical arguments. You have no right to complain about them if you are not even willing to read them or state why my arguments are wrong.
This is the only way you can counter my arguments? By banning me for pointing out the mistakes and bias?
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 06:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I support you and you accuse me of filling articles with bias?! Nobleeagle 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You support me? You refuse to read anything I have to say, and your Pakistani text book comment doesnt prove anything. I dont have any Pakistani textbooks. All this is from plain logic. You guys have already proved to me that you are only here to edit articles to fit your own POV. You simply refuse to see logic no matter how much evidence is presented to you.
I tried compromising, presenting Facts, staying Neutral, while not insulting anyone or destroying debates by going off topic. And look what that got me. Another 1 week ban.
So sorry for not believeing that you support me.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I support your unblocking. Your block was not warranted. I have been civil with you, like in the doosra discussion. The history is the only place where we fall apart. Nobleeagle 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Unre4L, What did the "mediation committee" say? I thought you were being given advice by a mediation committee. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I contacted several people regarding dispute solving. I was told to "solve the dispute directly", by talking to the members. If that didnt work out I was told to RfC in that section. But the usual members would ruin the argument before anyone else got there to comment.
I did exactly what I was told, and even that got me banned
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Message

Thanks for your message. I understand your argument, and do not doubt your good intentions. Hopefully your exposure to knowledgeable wikipedians from around the world and wikipedia policies will broaden your perspective on this issue, and soon lead you into agreement with other editors on this issue. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Astola_island_pakistan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Astola_island_pakistan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the point of your block

Hi - I thought it wise to make clear the point of your block:

1. This block is not about your beliefs or the arguments you're involved in. Blocks are not punitive and especially not about someone's personal convictions. The future course of the arguments you're involved in is not relevant.
2. I apologize to you for mistaking what you were saying regarding "PakHub" (I've admitted my mistake on ANI) BUT - it doesn't resolve the problem that you seem to be carrying out your purpose and work of PakHub here.
3. This block was caused because you simply extended your behavior, characterized by claims of Indians "ripping off" Pakistani history by more comments like "160 million people" being denied their history - many of your comments at Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India are laced with such rhetoric and accusations. I've listed them at ANI.
4. I've explained which policies apply in regards to your behavior. I've talked to you several times to not make such inflammatory comments - these are fodder to anyone in terms of accelerating disputes to an ugly level. Also, I don't know why these comments can't be construed as your insults to India(ns) and Indian editors.
5. I was happy to see your work at Talk:Doosra with others, but at Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India, you are making insulting remarks about the other editors (accusing D-Boy, Baka, Deeptrivia, AMbroodEY, Freedom skies). Add to these your edit summaries accusing others of vandalism. In many of your comments, you are simply blaming others for creating problems and attempting to thwart your efforts - this is not "dispute resolution."
6. Once this block expires (if your unblock request is not accepted), you can resume your normal activities and continue these RfCs (nobody's asking you to change what you believe in or the topics you want to work on) - what you must change is your propensity to make the kind of statements you've been making to others and abandon your mission to push a particular point of view - of reclaiming Pakistani history (leave that for PakHub or anywhere outside Misplaced Pages). Leave out all hostility, incivility and personal attacks (I can't call them anything else, I'm sorry). You are dealing with a very sensitive issue and making statements and accusations about some people/editors robbing a country's history. These are not light errors that can be shrugged off.
7. You obviously believe that Pakistan's history is being ripped off, but you cannot make that personal conviction the purpose of your editing, which should be simply building a reputable encyclopedia. We all have our personal convictions and WP:NPOV is only possible when we are not working from the objective of propagating them, but solely from the mission and purpose of Misplaced Pages.
8. I or any other admin will warn/block other users involved in the dispute with you if their conduct is disruptive and insulting - that cannot be tolerated. I will definitely cross-check their edits, but don't expect that I or anybody else will see your behavior as justifiable in light of theirs - that's not how it works. You are still responsible for what you do.

I hope you will find it in yourself to not consider me your enemy and take this criticism in the spirit intended - it is bitter medicine, but this is only because the ailment is quite serious. I should point out that I had made the exact offer - of unblocking you if you committed to changing personal conduct and seek dispute resolution - that you accepted from the admin who reviewed your unblock request. Why didn't you accept my offer to begin with? Make no mistake - your personal conduct needs change. That's what this block is for - an opportunity to cool off, reflect and change. I hope you will, because I've not failed to recognize your potential as a productive editor and intelligent colleague. Rama's arrow (3:16) 16:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not carrying out any pakhub work. Where do you get that Idea? I didnt even write the articles. And DBoy did vandalise the article. Check out the history. He replaced "Pakistan" with terms according to his own POV.
Freedom skies did make a comment about Jihadist remarks, which were posted by a troll.
I have not insulted anyone. Please stop accusing me.
And finally, questioning statements not making sense does not class as disruptive behaviour. Refusing to answer my arguments and destroying the RfC argument does class as disruptive behaviour.
Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I come on Misplaced Pages to edit a global source of knowledge, not to make enemies or have arguments. So I, like you (although you are being forced), will take a break from Pakistan-related articles and other controversial articles for at least a week. No promises as such, but I'll try :). I'm telling you this because you should know that I won't be editing these articles behind your back and secondly because I think it is important that there is an element of collaboration remaining between Indian and Pakistani editors, like there is present between Indian, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi editors. I don't care about PakHub, your actions on Wiki are your actions on Wiki and you haven't been edit warring or anything so at the moment I wouldn't include PakHub in any discussion relating to Indian history. In relation to earlier disagreements, your calls for RFC were appreciated and we got a suitable result on articles like doosra, so that in my eye proves that you aren't just here to push POV. We disagree in relation to Indian and Pakistani history, it doesn't matter whether you have read Pakistani textbooks or not, I assume your family influence would have ensured that you possess the Pakistani viewpoint just as Indians possess the Indian viewpoint. I don't think you can expect a common Indian user to say that India has no right over the Indus Valley Civilization, so disagreement is, alas, inevitable in that field. But the heated discussion has, nevertheless, made me feel that I should back away and spend my time in other articles. So hopefully my backing down encourages prolonged collaboration and hopefully you begin to see more qualities in Indian editors apart from the idea that they "just want to make Pakistan look bad". WP:AGF. I think your experience with the history discussion has made you forget that pricinple, it's very important. Nobleeagle 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Nadirali as well to try and solve disputes. But then I had a bit of a hectic period with a massive discussion on Swastikas so I forgot to reply, now his talk page is protected...In relation to Nadirali's message, I would like to emphasize the fact that all pre-1947 India-related articles no longer bear the Indian flag on the talk page template, whether the place lies in RoI or whether it lies in Pakistan. In addition to this, I think some of the disputes may have occurred because many of the Pakistani users here are new and not as familiar with Wikipolicies. Also, in relation to Pakistani nationalism, the debate here is very confusing because it was added by a Pakistani user who also used to talk about Indians stealing history etc. named S Seagal. When we asked him to remove the statements which included detrimental attacks on the Sikh community, he reverted us. So there was consensus to accept Seagal's version of the article. I agree with Nadirali that the words "some Pakistani nationalists" would be better than generalizations but the fact remains that at least one Pakistani user described Aurangzeb's rules as part of "Wars of Liberation and Salvation". Anyway, I just wanted to get that reply out of the way. Nobleeagle 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nobleeagle. I appreciate what you are trying to do, and I was trying to make a compromise with everyone aswell. I even followed Ramas advice on dispute solving, and keeping in mind I didnt insult anyone or edit war, I am still banned. How is this even fair? My argument might not stick well with Ramas POV, but take a look at what he is banning me for. He doesnt agree with me, but that gives him no right to call it disruptive behaviour, especially not when a lot of people agree with me.
I am frankly getting tired of him. I was unfairly banned last time, and even though the ban was lifted, I still went through 3 days of ban.
Be honest. If I deserved a week for what he calls disruption, Then D-Boy, Bakaman, and Freedom Skies deserved a months ban each for their part in editing Pakistan articles to fit their POV, disrupting the debate I started and insulting me.
You dont know how frustrated I am. I get no warnings, no nothing, just a ban, which only Rama and his buddy seem to agree with. I tried harder than anyone to reach a compromise. Obviously nobody could see that.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You aren't edit warring which is why I don't think the block is warranted. Your ban is an incivility and hostility issue...I think the discussion could have been made a little more civilly and a bit more sensitivity may have been prudent. Over some time, I think my mind has got narrower over the past few months, I'm now trying to open my mind to people everywhere and their viewpoints. I suggest everyone in this discussion try the same. Think that instead of POV-pushing, the Indian users around you are simply protecting what they think is their history, and when undertaking the discussion, know that they are as enthusiastic in this debate about history as you are in your side. See the ideas presented by people like Gizza, who said that that's the most emotional he's ever got on Misplaced Pages. If you see it their way, and talk the topic on their terms, and compromise and establish consensus and all the time be civil and assume good faith all the time, then you won't be blocked. Note that Bakaman has been blocked numerous times in the past, it's not like Misplaced Pages's controlled by Indians, the Hindi Misplaced Pages maybe but not the English one. It's also important that you assume good faith with Nirav too, almost all admins are good, as they were elected to the position. Nirav has over 20000 edits, he has a number of FAs and is a useful user to Wiki all-round. Nobleeagle 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good lord...

I really dont know how to say this without losing my cool. To put it mildly as a descendent of a man who lost his entire family in post-partition violence, i am pained by your continued genocide denials . Well try telling that to the descendents of 7 million Hindus & Sikhs who were forced out of Pakistan. Nobody leaves their home, businesses and land to immigrate as penniless refugees. Its simple economics. My grandfather was born in Karachi while his family is from Sukkur. His parents were probably barbecued to death in their Sukkur home. His sister's family was hacked to death in Hindubagh, Balochistan (a town now renamed Muslimbagh). We still dont know what happened to his other sister. My gramp could only survive coz he was in Karachi, nearer to border. Do you think a Sindhi lawyer who spent his entire life in Sindh would opt for a life in the squalor of Chembur's refugee camps? He subsequently migrated to England. But to his deathbed my oldman remained true to Sindh. Islamic Republic of Pakistan rejected his visa application 17 times. He never saw his home again. Dont insult our collective intellects by denying a documented event. Ofcourse there was retributive anti-Muslim violence in India but it wasnt of same intesity. One of the reasons why India still has over 150 million Muslims while Hindus in Pakistan are down to 2% from 25% in 1947.

I suggest you try to read about those horrible times. Freedom at Midnight could be a good start. Though most Indians and Pakistanis may have developed cultural amnesia vis-a-vis partition, we the Hindu Sindhis havent. Three generations of Sindhi Hindus have been born and broughtup in exile. Even if the world has forgotten how we were ethnically cleansed, we havent. Amey Aryan DaBrood 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord. Yes thats the words. I am not denying anything, and it pains me to see you have to pick on this. I might have been wrong in making the one statement about nobody being forced to leave Pakistan. For that I am sorry. But that was ONE statement. I sincerely apologize. But thank you for ignoring my other 500 statements about Pakistani history. It confirms that you have no intentions of seeing logic or even consider my arguments. I condemn any violence that happened during the partition but remember that the violence went both ways.

Losing cool?

And please dont talk to me about losing cool. I have got people like Ramas Arrow to deal with, who ban you unfairly and use this ban to their advantage by twisting stories and facts to gather support Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_and_PakHub.
Ramas arrow. If you wanted to throw dirt at me, you could have done it without banning me so I could defend myself from your ridiculous accusations.
You refer to Pakhub like I was planning on recruiting people for huge edit wars. The site was used to make people aware of the issue, and I have, which I dont deny. But your buddies here on Misplaced Pages, have been going to Indian forums, like Hinduunity (an extremist and racist forum) and asking for attacks on Pakhub , or even Indiandefense forum to recruit people to help edit warring and making fun of Pakistanis . Please do mention this when discussing my so called agenda with admins.
Well done. You sure have won my respect. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are really losing your cool, and creating outrageous theories in order to extend my ban. . Your argument doesnt even make sense. Take a good look at my replies on Pakhub. I have been telling the trolls to behave and change their ways, and now you will twist the words in order to gather support while ignoring Indian users actively recruiting people to edit war on Misplaced Pages.
Seriously, Have I ever edit warred? or told anyone else to edit war? or insulted Indians on pakhub? Thats more than I can say for people you are defending.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My Unblock discussion abandoned?

I cant seem to find the discussion and it seems the idea was abandoned even though Rama had nothing on me, and nobody (apart from Bakaman, surprise!) agreed the the ban.
Please let me know the outcome or the link to the "on-going" debate.

Unre4L (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Ramas arrows references are misleading. He made it look like I was referring to people on Wiki. I was referring to "Indian Trolls" on PakHub. He might have stroked it out and apologized but that was the main thing he got me banned for.

• Even though some users insulted me, I didnt insult anyone, or edit war, or even use any offensive words. Rama quoted some seriously neutral statements of mine to back himself up, probably hoping nobody would click on the links.

• He forgot to mention how other users were disruptive and refused to comment on my argument but started changing the subject by falsely accusing me for having #Jihaddist# views, which were in fact posted on my site by "Indian Trolls".

• The comments used against me were Facts Quoted From This Misplaced Pages, and the arguments which I presented. I dont see how this was even taken seriously.

I have already gone through a significant time of the ban, and last time I went through 3 days of the 1 week ban which nobody agreed with. I hope this will be considered.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh My God. "Ramas Arrow", That Is Low!

.
I cant actually believe that you are trying this hard to get me banned even more. You keep making new conspiracy theories. I dont have anything against Jews, and sorry, but Jews is not a racist term it simply means Jewish People. Stop using this stuff to gather support.
I was trying to calm down the Troll on Pakhub, by explaining to him that Jews dont vandalise Islam articles, and You are using this against me? Oh My God!!!!
PakHub Propaganda?? What?? Its a discussion forum. And you are using the Trolls comments to describe the founders of the site? Please dont make mindless accusations.
Now I understand why you had to ban me in order to do this.
I followed your advise in trying to resolve disputes. No Edit wars or Insults from me whatsoever. And even with that you are trying your best to extend my ban, when people dont even agree with your current ban.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Your block has been extended to a duration of 2 weeks, as a result of block evasion through user:84.43.72.199. Rama's arrow (3:16) 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock