User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive11

Hello
Please see User_talk:Nadirali, User_talk:Unre4L, User_talk:Arjun01/Archive17 (This one is an interesting discussion) and User_talk:Dangerous-Boy. Yep, as you said I'm no longer going to touch on any controversial article for the next 9 months because of my final year of high school. It causes too much stress. I'm only on Wikipedia for enjoyment until my secondary schooling is over. Bhadaniji gave me inspiration. Regards GizzaChat  &#169; 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Khalistan
My concerns about dubious statements made by anonymous ip about dubious sources. If he continues to use holocaust deniers as legitimate sources he needs to be reported. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3rrv by User:MinaretDk
On Persecution of Hindus.Reported here. Please check and make corrections if needed. Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Border-Gavaskar Trophy
Hi there. It would be quite easy to get that to GA, although we would have to spend a bit of time removing the hyperbole of the people who wrote it a long time ago. I can't see any free images around the place, unless any Wikipedians have their own images they took a long time ago by actually going to the games. Having said that, you don't need pics at all for GA, and if an FA was wanted, then fair use would do in the absence of anything else. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt the likelihood of finding any action pictures of the players in the BG series would be rare. However, the Harbhajan Singh article has a free pic of him in training gear. Many of the Australian bios also have pics as well, so we could put portraits of some of the players into the sections on series where they had a prominent role, with Harbhajan in 2001, Ponting in 2003-04 consecutive double centuries, and Martyn in 2004. Cheers, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a bit more on the Indian cricket team. I also saw your post to Rama's Arrow. They don't mention anybody by name at all, although they have things like quote, , "Wikipedia is a deliberate conspiracy by Jews and Hindus, full of lies and hate against al-Islam. All the "top" admins are Jews and Hindus" - . There's also a motion to ban Siddiqui on ANI. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment
Thanks for the compliment on the Saare Jahan Se Achcha talk page! You might also be interested in this  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No they haven't mentioned you, except perhaps indirectly when they talk about Indian users. Rama's arrow (3:16)  15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to come to a resolution!
Noble Eagle keeps deleting my edits to the Demographics section. I'm a Kashmiri who has lived in Kashmir and I'm quite aware that MOST Kashmiri's consider the exodus to be a planned event that was staged by Jagmohan. I've also said that the Hindu populace holds that the exodus was due to intimidation, but I don't think that what a small minority believes should be what Wikipedia should state. The fact is that this article is about Kashmir and so what the Kashmiri majority believes and knows should be given preference over the minority. And if you keep deleting my posts out of arrogance, I'll keep deleting yours. Two can play this game!

So lets reach a consensus. Wikipedia is not a Propoganda machine! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worshipfulmaster (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Why revert my revert?
Why add the synopsis changes again? They're badly written and they make the synopsis a bore to read. Think of the reader. Zora 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

your message
Look there's no harm in you editing any articles at any time on wikipedia.The only problem is POV and bias should be kept out.If you can keep out your POV,no one has a problem with your or anyone's edits.Nadirali نادرالی

Thankyou for your honesty.I agree this is time wasting,so I'm going to stay away from SA articles for a while and write up some other articles which I plan on writing.Thankyou. Nadirali نادرالی

swatika
I shall sacrifice my cojones to agni now...--D-Boy 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:CWC
Hi,

I don't think the issue of image in infobox is serious enough to fail the article. But definitely, images that don't satisfy FUC would fail an article in FAC. I too want the article on the main page, but don't have sufficient time to edit the page myself. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to stay away for a while, and just slowly fix up things with the language which I thought were inadequate for little bit longer. I don't really want to create a big scene there at the moment yet. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at the linkes in User:Ganeshk/Tips_to_write_featured_articles. I particularly recommend the stuff by Tony1, as it is the 1a issue which is the bottleneck in almost all FACs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you still wanting to get this done? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you given up on getting the wc articles on the main page?--Thugchildz
 * I think it's nearly there, I think. Babri Mosque should keep you interested either way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, do enjoy it when it comes, and thanks for the work on it. I should probably fill some of the areas which are still skinny on refs, I'm surprised people don't care about the fact that some statements aren't actually refrenced. To the best of my knowledge, the preview thing can't be disabled. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK
-- Yomangani talk 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Came across this edit. First, a point of information: Amartya Sen is a political scientist as well as an economist - he would describe himself as a political economist - and the extract from his very well-received book posted by Fowler purports to describe the political pressures on academic production, which is certainly relevant in a POV-war. (Your statement that "lots in support" of the OIT, which I will pass over with a certain amusement.) The thing is, that I think that accusing F&F of bad faith in posting that extract is a little OTT. No doubt you will want to review that accusation. Hornplease 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither the book (which is wide-ranging in scope) nor the extract suggest "Indians are stealing Pakistan's history". On the contrary, the extract, if read carefully, allows the problem editor to understand the degree to which nomenclature is politically sensitive. At worst, the user will understand some of the motivation behind the other side of the POV war. At best, the user will be redirected to discussing content, not silly little template tags on talkpages. (If you dont think that additional information from an unimpeachable source is useful, WP is doomed from the outset, surely.) In particular, an accusation of bad faith implies you think F&F deliberately chose the extract to encourage the user to be more difficult, and thus undermine the project; that it might not be prudent, which is what you have said, is insufficient to allege bad faith.
 * F&F has himself explained that he was hoping to redirect the editor in question towards considering "the existing POV problems in many Pakistan-related Wikipedia pages"; I can't help but see that as an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, and would be disappointed if you differ. Hornplease 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad we agree. Having a look at the sig right now, can't immediately see what might be wrong. Hornplease 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Power
I haven't been on the article lately, but when looking at some sources I think they aren't so right. For egg., in the page is claimed that in military terms Italy is more a middle power and then there are links to articles that classifies Italy as a middle power. But in at least one of those articles Germany and Japan are considered middle powers two. So to be fair the link should say "note the classification of Italy, Germany and Japan" within this group and not only Italy. And in the definition when is Italy is classified as a middle power in military power why isn't Germany, Japan or India considered to be middle too? As far as I know Italy has a greater and better navy than all these countries, its air force its not so big as the others but is well equiped and its army is well equiped too. And even if it looses to Germany in army and air force, in navy it gains for a wide margin. So its military is comparable to that of Germany for eg. And in international conflicts Italy is more involved than any of these countries. It is the third contributor to peacekeeping after USA and UK. So I think is not fair to consider Italy Great only in economy, militarly it is too and politically it is being more any year.

ACamposPinho 23:25, 30 January 2007

Article
We could use a level head over at Great power. Could you help out? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lots of things
Hi. Firstly regarding the infobox, I think I said it did mislead the reader but no longer does. Ambuj and a few others pointed out the misleading things.

On the Khatri issue, I don't mind the removal of my surname! I have never heard of the Char Ghar thing. I do know that Khatris are diveded into three (/four) groups: Kukhrains, Bhol---, Brij--? (I don't remember the names of these two properly) and sometimes Arora. Kukhrains are traditionally "the highest", then the Bhol and then the Brij. As an example, Chadhas are Kukhs, Kapoorts, Sehgals, Malhotras (Chopras?) are Bhol, Lambas are Brij. Note all of what I said is unsourced and I doubt if much of it can be sourced. Castes are a social/community thing and caste traditions etc. are past down orally. The essence of the castes are governed by the castes themselves. I must say I have never heard of the surname Seth either for Indians. Pages should be created for all of the surnames, more often than not in the form of disambiguation, linking to famous people with that surname.

I haven't decided on my stance for the emerging superpower pages yet. To be honest I agree that something has to be done, whether it be renaming, restructering/moving info or in the worst case scenario, deleting. They seem to be more like essays than articles. GizzaChat  &#169; 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations"
I was in no way trying to jump the gun and say that you were canvassing. I saw some suspicious diffs, and so I raised the possibility. My main response is on the AFD. Sorry if it seemed that I was actually accusing you. The Behnam 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. For any other article it would be right to list it at the country deletions list, but for these sort of things it invariably draws in nationalist editors who just say "keep - really notable" without adding anything to the discussion at all.  Usually, it is OK to list this on a related noticeboard or Wikiproject, but again, the same problem occurs.  And yet, there should be somewhere that a notice could be posted that wouldn't draw in any specific views but rather a diversity of opinion regarding the AFD.  I'd say its just better to let random involved users who patrol AFD boards to take a look in a case like this.  I showed up because I had left Rumpel's page on my watchlist from some issues I had with him, and saw the mention.  Considering the 'India-pride' involved in the case, your "keep" vote, and Rumps editing trends, I suspected a canvass.  In the end, your other notifications weren't so fishy, so it was probably just a bad coincidence.  Anyway, I think that plenty of people are involved, and that it is best to just let random people trickle in who are less likely who have a 'pride' issue with the AFD.  This should provide a better discussion and palette of views.  This is, after all, supposed to go by argument merit.  Sorry again for anything I implied with my canvassing remark.  The Behnam 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New India superpower format
Your new format is much better, excellent in fact. Problem is convincing the "intersted parties" (both those who want to fill the article with POVs, and those who want to delete it) to allow such a drastic change. Then the problem becomes watching it like a hawk to ensure it doesn't end up back where it started. Just wanted to give you some encouragement. Kevlar67 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it is a good effort, and appreciate it, but as is probably clear from my vehement "Strong Delete" post, I feel that these kind of articles are flawed out of principle. Invariably, they invite nationalists, who then cite nationalists.  Most other people don't care enough about the topic to make the article or hunt it out, and as is clear from the AFD, they tend to think these kind of articles are silly when they do come across them.  I could easily make such an article for Iran, and there would be stuff to back it up, but the inherent dedication to advancing a specific viewpoint makes this type of article unfit for an encyclopedia.  The very design of these "emerging superpower" articles gives undue weight to nationalist sources, analysis, and editors.


 * While hypothetically it is possible to have a neutral article about a country's power status, I see no mechanism to prevent the problems I have outlined. Perhaps for India, the article could be kept neutral by assigning strong-POV Pakistani editors to the article, but then there will be neutrality conflicts and worse.  I know this all is very similar to my original statement, but I felt a need to reiterate this in a slightly different fashion.  Still, I appreciate your efforts to try making these articles work, but I'm afraid that it doesn't address the fundamental flaws of these articles.  The Behnam 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dalits
Yes, it is the hard work part that I'm objecting to. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus
Hi - as you seem to be involved in the present dispute, I'd suggest that you spearhead an RfC or some organised effort. I've asked Fowler to do the same. I've protected the article in the interm, Rama's arrow  03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I'm obligated not to edit the article. Its up to you guys to clean up this mess. Rama's arrow  03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a "disputed" tag, so as to not mislead the readers. I don't think Minaret will find that a biased decision, but one can never say of course :) Rama's arrow


 * Can't do anything. page is protected.  I was going to rv it.  Minaret might be a sockpuupet for bhaisaab.  if you want more help, email broody.  it's always in your best interest.--D-Boy 08:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Haral
Seems you are active on the Template:Castes and Tribes of the Punjab. If you are the one that made these changes from the original why...?

Among the Punjabis Kshatriya are known as Khatris why have you changed this ?

Then in the listing among the khatri I see  Khatri : Khanna | Kapoor | Kukhran | Mehra | Seth | Sareen | List of Khatri surnames.

This is wrong Khanna ,Kapoor, Mehra, Seth are individual caste names of dhai gharas why are they listed seperately ?

Next Kukhran are mentioned which are a clan ??? as opposed to the above names

and then there is the List of Khatri Surnames  which is neither a name nor a group

there seems to be no systematic logic here ...??

Then I see that you have now deleted Haral from Rajput ? why ???

Intothefire 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

cough...3RR...cough...talk page etiquette...cough...censoring...cough...vandalism
You know, I probably shouldn't have posted my analysis in the first place, but I didn't have a user talk page to put it on -- I don't like using IP pages since they an change so easily. Since the anon edited it out from the Talk page (after you put it back in), and I don't object, let's let sleeping dogs lie. This isn't quite within normal Talk etiquette, but in these circumstances I think it falls under Rule 0.

Thanks.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your comments: I'm not suggesting that you broke any rules, far from it -- I'm asking you to set one aside, a minor one, in the name of forgiveness. You've done everything right. CRGreathouse (t | c) 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerging superpowers
Don't know much abt it, but perhaps WP:DRV wuld help... India Rising 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some indian editors just don't have balls to vote keep. now a days, wikipedia is nothing but a propaganda machine.  Why was my vote discounted?  kind of discriminatory.  Even people who wrote arguements for their keep got discounted.  what the hell?!--D-Boy 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dangerous-Boy, regarding your comment "indian editors just don't have balls to vote keep," please take a look at Civility. Your vote was "discounted" because you didn't provide any reasons on why the articles should be kept. If a hundred people said "keep all" it doesn't mean anything if give a argument, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, where votes count. The only main editor who did argue was Noble and his arguments were refuted. In the end Wiki-policies override all and it was concluded the article would inevitably always be based on WP:OR.


 * Another query. Your Indian balls comment is rather strange in addition to being rude. It sounds as if Indian Wikipedians have different rules from others. Just because the subject of an article is related to India does not justify Indians to vote keep the AfD. You will notice that a fair number of the users at the discussion are from Europe but they didn't want to keep the EU article for the various reasons they stated. The nationality of a Wikipedian should have no bearing on their decisions on RfAs (which is what Anwar is doing) and XfDs. The decisions should be based on what in the long term will be best for Wikipedia.


 * P.S. Sorry if I sounded crude but I needed to make the point clear. Yesterday for the first time I went to Pakhub which I presume you guys know about and went through all of the discussions. I found it strange how Nadir, according to his opinion, will classify me as a Pakistani when two generations ago those Pakistanis threaten to kill my entire family, paternal and maternal (moreso here). To be honest I don't think those who migrated/were forced to go to Pakistan from India will call themselves Indian either. He believes that the WikiProject tag signifies ownership (some of the Indians do this too) when all it means is association or relation. That in effect there should be a large number of article that have both the Pakistani and Indian WikiProject tags. To Noble, sorry for clustering up your talk page :-) GizzaChat  &#169;</b> 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not go to the pakhub. that site will probably be investigated by the fbi.  About the indian balls comment.  it is not being rude.  it is the truth.  We seem to have different rules than others.  the tag incidents have shown it.  Why can't indian editors just stand up and say no?  I do not need to hear that nationality speech.  let's face it.  you're brown, i'm brown, and a lot of the users that edit our kind of articles are brown.  this is the reality.  Why must an indian or hindu project change when others do not?  this is extremely biased.  As for the tags with the pak, that's his problem.  he's crazy.  you can't change him and niether can I.  it's how life is.  he can put his pak tag anywhere he wants.  as long as doesn't remove the indian tag, i see no problem.--D-Boy 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, why do you bother to lecture to me about such things?  you of all people know my views.--D-Boy 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to transfer those views onto Wikipedia. There's something called WP:NPOV. It is very shameful that you don't respect Wikipedia and place your views above it. We are to build articles, not spread anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu propaganda. And don't personally attack Nadir, (crazy) or any of the other good-faith editors, which is appears that you are not. It is strange you are criticising people who place Wikipedia above their own views and that contributed so much more to the project than you have in Indian-related areas and in other places. It is these editors that make Wikipedia so valuable, not trolls which unfortunately you are becoming more of. I have no idea why you think the deletion was anti-Indian considering the Chinese and European ones were deleted too. I was against the "emerging superpower," not the India part. So was Rama's Arrow, Gurubrahma, Nichalp (excellent Indian FA writers)... God... And please don't respond, you are a lot of stress in my already stressful life. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So that is how you feel.  So be it then....Also, I never attacked rama's arrow.  i have respect for him.--D-Boy 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know and to finish this off, Rama's Arrow said "Delete all" on the Emerging Superpower AfD. Please check the link. Your (lack of) response is interesting. Funny how NadirAli is accusing me at this very moment of trying to steal Pakistan's history and you in a similar way are calling me a balless, weak Indian. I guess that is how it is when you act neutral. I don't we'll see each other much more in the next nine months except when you do your Category organising. All the best <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My lack of response is the anger and betrayal I feel from you at the moment. I never called you ballless.  When I mean balls, I mean the gandhi attitude most users have on controversial issues and censorship.--D-Boy 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DaGizza it takes something called nerve to get things done like how I restarted WT:HNB. Baka man  01:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy, there's enough tensions between Indians and non-Indians already without Indians creating tensions amongst themselves by splitting into the "Hindu" and the "Hindu Hindutvavaadi groups".  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobleeagle I spent two months taking BhaiSaab, TerryJ-Ho and random minions on my own. I also made no secret of the minimal amount of respect I show certain users. O and btw, I have no need defending a country where all people are inherently unequal under the law. Baka man  23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm outta here... Its about the time people started acting their ages not their shoe sizes! My userpoage was vandalised and my personal info along with my cell no. were posted for all to see. I'm considering retiring... Before i go... Noble, F&F has been using that Amartya Sen ref everywhere (see Indian mathematics...<b style="color:#FF9933;"> Amey Aryan DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy Superpower page controversy + new energy pages
Nobleeagle, I saw you have contributed a few times to the energy superpower page, and we currently are in crisis mode on the page. Perceval, a administrator you may know of, has decided to put half the page on a temporary setting. After exchanging some words over the merits of his editing decision, we have decided to salvage the situation by creating separate pages for the definitions which Perceval at the moment will not let us edit onto the main page. If you can in any way contribute or speak to Perceval and find out what he considers canon for the page, you have my gratitude. The new energy pages will be Great Energy Power and perhaps a page called "energy power" or "regional energy power". I'd be very grateful if I could get your support in editing as well as negotiating with Perceval over the energy superpower page. Thanks for your previous edits, Drakeguy 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tags
Regarding your question about Pak flag being provocative, the answer is:

No, if the subject of the article is currently in Pakistan.

Yes, if the subject of the article is currently in Republic of India.

Szhaider 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerging superpowers

 * Sorry to see that the articles got deleted and drv failed. I think the best way is to go to the Talk:India page and start moving some of the relevant information to India. As it is, that article is being edited by anti-India bigots (ahem: Fowler&fowler) and that needs to be addressed. Also move relevant edits to Economy of India, Culture of India, and, to be fair, similar edits to China related articles as well.
 * Just a suggestion. Think about it.
 * Bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.131.215 (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Good job dude
Hey dude....

good job on the Kashmir articles.

Puneet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Devilbemyguide (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: Evidence
At least you admit it wasnt a "Genocide Denial".

Regarding my comments, It was to make people realise that millions of Hindus stayed behind. And also, some Indian nationalists seem to be under the impression that all the violence took place in Pakistan, and people were spreading love in India until they reached the border. This was what provoked me, and I am sorry if anyone took it the wrong way. It was simply to make them realise. -- Unre4L  ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ  <sup style="color:green;">UT 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

British Empire
Hey, I’m knew to this site and have a problem, and since you have edited various Indian articles I was hoping for some help. On the British Empire page, I have posted some facts from Oxford, MIT, Cambridge, etc, based research on the British Empire, and I feel as that I'm being bullied and there is a bias without any sort of proof. What can I do? Any help would be great. Thanks!

Cosmos416 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

chat2007
There is an informal discussion and a straw poll at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/chat2007. Your input would be beneficial. --RF 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict
Why do you keep on removing the neutrality tag without a discussion? On the pakistani view their is an Indian counter argument for every position. This is not done on the Indian view. The Pakistani view, is supposed to be the one section of the article that is completly in Pakistans pov. Put counter arguments in the Indian view, or create a new section called Indian counter arguments to Pakistan view. As for references i dont know what that has to do with the neutrality tag. I know the Pakistani view section needs work, and references, but none of the reasons were put in by me. IP198 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)