User talk:Madhev0

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Pamri &bull; Talk 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Views sections
I agree that perhaps both views sections will be biased easily, but they might be a vital part to the article and other editors might object to deleting it. So, I think they should be kept. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

why are you being mean?
I am sorry but I did not know how to contact you...listen I am not trying to be mean...but your page on Kashmir is way to long & boring. But more importantly u leave out alot of facts! When I edit your page, I say the same stuff you say, with more facts, and I also shortened it...what is wrong with that? My email is ARYAN@LAWYER.COM


 * It is not my page, it is an encylopedia page made by many people and if you keep doing the type of editing you are doing, you'll be blocked from editing because it is considered vandalism to replace so much of the material with ur opinions. --Madhev0 23:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work
I was looking over Terrorism in Kashmir and I think you did a very good job of NPOVing and cleaning up messy material. Good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kashmir
Hello Madhev. I just noticed you made a lot of changes to the Terrorism in Kashmir article. Thanks for making an effort to remove POV content from the article. However, I was not very happy with some of the changes you made for example changing various subheadings and removing certain pieces of information. I am willing to make an effort to sort out our differences and make the article more encyclopedic and balanced. But for that, we'll have to use the article's talkpage. Cheers and happy editing --User:Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 23:55, 19 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|सदस्य वार्ता]] 00:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

hi,

thanks for yr message. It is the Pakistani POV that the Pakistanis who were killed in J&K were actually "Kashmiri insurgents". This lie has been repeated so many times that anyone who disagrees is considered as having a "pov" - even when proof is provided. Most of the Pakistanis in Kargil were in fact members of the Pak army's Northern Light Infantry and the Pakistani commando unit known as the SSG. It is a fact that dead Pakistani soldiers(from the NLI) were buried by the Indian army. This was widely reported in the media at that time.

Could you be confusing a misplaced desire to appear as a "balanced person" with what is actually npov? At any rate, one must avoid playing the role of a "useful idiot" and allow oneself to be manipulated in this manner.(no personal offence meant by the term "useful idiot", pl. take it in the right spirit). --rf

Hi Madhev,

>I am Indian but even I know this is not an Indian encyclopedia.

Firstly, I never questioned you about your nationality and I don't quite understand why you choose to remind me of it and state that this is not an "Indian encyclopedia". What does that mean and how is any of this relevant to the issue?

>It is like adding a large part about the assam violence into the India article.

My edits were on the section related to the rise of terrorism in the region hence entirely relevant to that particular section, especially in the light of world events(Kandahar->9/11->Daniel Pearl->Omar Saeed Sheikh). Of course you are entitled to a different opinion. However I did only post facts.

>And to call Pervez Musharraf by "military ruler" instead of his accurate title as head of state is very biased.

Says who? I am stunned by your above statement, Madhev. "Military ruler" is in fact the npov manner of referring to a dictator, i.e. someone who is there without a popular mandate. It is General Musharraf and his supporters' POV that he is "President", "Chief Executive" or whatever self-appointed title he chooses. Remember that this is not an elected leader. Most would agree that "Military ruler" is the most neutral term either way. The more accurate term is dictator.

I'm afraid my earlier fears appear to be confirmed. You seem to be a bit confused on the concept of POV. I do understand that you want to appear as a "good citizen" on wikipedia(i.e. a "balanced editor" as opposed to a POV bigot). Ironically that appears to be impairing your judgement on edits. However, you must not allow yourself to be manipulated(possibly subconsciously) by the fear of being labelled as "pov" editor - which is what appears to be the case right now. There is no point in being a sheep.

>If you continue to do what you are doing, you will be blocked from editing.

It is also shocking that you choose to threaten another editor in this manner simply because you espouse a particular point of view on the issues.

--rfcom

WOW!
Thank you very much. Everyone seems to be giving me a barnstar today. You do great work too and you are very close to getting a barnstar in my view. Thanks once again. And yes I am interested in India articles too, but this article needed way more work. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for you know what. ;) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim Guild
I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild. --JuanMuslim 03:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

India related links
---Pamri &bull; Talk &bull; [ Reply] 08:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)