User talk:Rahpal

Dear Rahpal:

I like the way you have written the qualifications to the claims that have been made on the Jat People page about ancient Indian rulers being Jats. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone and bring this particular argument to an end. Cheers, John Hill 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John,

the Jat people page is very biased and full of inconsistencies.

There is a lot of problems with the claims on this page.

We must work together to better this.--Rahpal 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias in deletion
Dear Rahpal, you seem to be born on Wikipedia on 4 March 2007 and have deleted lot of content from Jat page. If you go on deleting this way it will be left with a stub. You are deleting well referenced paras saying no proof. When it is cited properly what proof is needed? When Babur wrote Babarnama he wrote about himself only why should he write about deed of Jats or Rajputs. How can you say he was wrong? Have you contributed this article or any other article on Wikipedia about a social group. You go to Rajput article and find that men are born from fire or by the power of mantras. See here a para from Rajput article produced here "The Agnivanshi lineage, claims descent from four persons who were born from fire or by the influence of Ved Mantras. According to Pouranic legend as found in Bhavishya Purana,an yagna was held at Mount Abu, at the time of emperor Ashoka's sons. From the influence of Mantras of the four Vedas four Kshatriyas were born". Now have tried to correct it? Why are you so worried about Jat article? Your good contributions are welcome but go on deleting can not be understood. If you know about Jats something then add. There seems bias in your approach. Please refrain from deletion. burdak 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.Why is it that when your ridiculous claims are questioned, then you want me or anyone else to go and check every other articles? Why cant we focus on your article? Your behaviour shows me you are one screwed up dude. I dont care about fire born people etc. if thats what they believe thats cool. But if you are claiming it as proof on an encyclopedia, then you are wrong.
 * I understand you are getting angry at being challenged like this, (why not, your lies have been caught by John etc) but to take it out on me in wrong. Guru di soh, you will not get peace until the truth is revealed Burdaka.

Do not blank the page
Please do not blank the page. Let its history and content be there. Are you and John Hill the same persons ? burdak 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but are you and and the silly socks with anon IP's the same? I think so ;-)