User talk:UplinkAnsh


Welcome...

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.

Balochistan

Hi,UplinkAnsh!
You have figures of casualties in the Balochistan conflict?Sentinel R (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will update the article when I have refrences.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hinduism in Pakistan

I did not add those words in that page please check edit history [1]. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still it is a pov view and we should work towards neutrality.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say Neutrality but you changed following statement to your POV.
Previous version:
When Pakistan was formed in August 1947, over 7 million Hindus and Sikhs from what was East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and Pakistan's Punjab, Sindh and North-West Frontier Provinces chose to leave this new state for India, and a similar number of Muslims were forced to migrate the other way.
After your edit:
When Pakistan was formed in August 1947, over 7 million Hindus and Sikhs from what was East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and Pakistan's Punjab, Sindh and North-West Frontier Provinces were forced to leave this new state for India, and a similar number of Muslims chose the other way.
Either both were forced to leave or both chose to leave. It is true that many chose to leave and many were forced to leave from both sides. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted it, you can replace the word forced to chose.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at NPOV noticeboard

This message is to inform you that a discussion has been started at the NPOV noticeboard regarding an issue with which you are involved.--Hj108 (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PNS Ghazi

Hi I found an official pakistani navy history. apparently they like to hide it and not have any links to it on their main page. It says Ghazi was 'lost' during mine laying operations and says NOTHING about any accidents. to quote 'The submarine actively participated in Indo Pak 1965 war but was lost in 1971 war while deployed on a mine laying operation off the Indian Coast.'[2]. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw it when you pasted it on noticeboard. Thanks for introducing such an important source. I would be adding it to the article.

However I would also request you to find a book mentioned 'Story of Pakistani Navy' which has been mentioned in 'Transition to Triumph'. The book 'Story of Pakistani Navy' brings forward another Pakistani theory that the submarine was not able to communicate with Pakistani HQ a week before it was offically known to be sunk as it had already been sunk. The book suggests that India suppressed this information as the War had not started at that time. I would like to add this to the article as well.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I remember reading that also. it seemed somewhat fishy to me that the indian navy got lucky within hours of the war breaking out. I will see if I can fiind it. another theory I had read was that actually the sailors on Ghazi had defected to India and the boat was subsequently scuttled by the navy. this story about the sinking was popularized to protect the families of sailors who were still in Pakistan. now you know where Tom Clancy got his idea for 'Hunt for Red October' ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India-pakistan Wars!

Sure I would love to Help, Do let me know how! Tutu1234 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This article (http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/pakistan/aminkhemkaran.html) clearly reveals that Chawinda was not a decisive victory and its just an exaggeration of pakistani fanboys to have something to cling on to as a Victory! Tutu1234 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

terrorism

Can you please clarify please Mughalnz (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify what?? Please specify!!!--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why you did you revert last edit thanks man Mughalnz (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more specifically my edit in the State sponsored terrorism page Mughalnz (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the reasons. Certain articles contain only lists, others lists with basis info and yet others have details. This article is only about list and help provided to State-sponsored terrorist organisations and not about details of activities done by different groups. Visit LTTE article to add details. Also the refrences you used are unreliable by wiki standards. Visit Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more details.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

sweet but the which ref in questioned and can you also give example of 'not about details of activities done by different groups'.If you do this i would show you what ref were used for what and explained why the details were added in the section .Mughalnz (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details provided about LTTE and other groups in article is only about help provided to them by different states and not about their activities.

The news article is reliable but fourms are not.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me just logged on ,i will reply in few days sorry man but every sounds pretty sweet me got class in 2min now sorry man Mughalnz (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakdef.info

thought you would be interested in the mission statement of this website [3]

  • Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
  • We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
  • PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

they openly say that they do not believe 'Mainstream Media'. and reject contributions without explanation. this is supposed to meet WP:RS. unbelievable. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should raise the issue on Wikipedia:RS noticeboard to help Hj108 understand it is not reliable before removing it.
Would you put it on the noticeboard or should I do it??--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
go ahead if you want to post it at WP:RSN. though I think if we can have consensus on the talk page of the article that info from this source does not meet WP criteria for inclusion then that would be enough. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let us first try to reach consensus on talk page.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re ANI discussion involving you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated addition of unencyclopedic language by User:UplinkAnsh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping

here is a little policy you might find helpful while dealing with Hj108. WP:FORUMSHOP. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing into light another important policy of wikipedia which might be helpful. However, were you able to find any refrence or ISBN number of the book "Story of Pakistani Navy". since it might constitute a reliable Pakistani source for the article of PNS Ghazi.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC) your entire article seems to be promoting vandalism, and here its just a small edits are being questioned? In the article Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 only one sided review have been presented while real causus belli of the conflict have not been presented. Why the conflict started? who started it is completely neglected. Only the word " AFTER" the war has been used. What about during the war. The economic troubles are used to describe the net result. If it is to be taken into account what about the WW1 when American economy suffered a huge setback after the war? The WW1 ended in a armistice/ceasefire. Do we say Triple allied (Central powers) won the war?[reply]

Talkback

Hello, UplinkAnsh. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Use Project WP:IN

Please add the talk page of WP:IN to your watchlist and also post your requests on various India related topics to that talk page to get even more participation. Adding it to your watchlist will also help you getting involved with other India related articles where sometimes critical vote-tipping participation is required to achieve consensus/resolve India related issues. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be willing to participate.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

I would suggest you some glasses wit good -ve number. I have wrote "ALLEGEDLY" meaning yet to be proven. So there is no need to be get anxious. The incident which has happened could not be reverted. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you i was only giving you some good piece of advice. Give some logic for discarding the reference since it is used by main article at Ghazi. I am talking about the edit and not the source. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"suggest you some glasses wit good -ve number" is a personal attack. Which reference are you talking about?? The references have been already dicussed on PNS Ghazi talk page.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey uplinkash, thanks for the ice age tip. Honestly, I'm too busy to be seriously involved in all this. I just dropped some comments there to make it an issue and am half-heartedly trying to get something added or stimulated. I didn't know where else to reply to you, so I'm posting here. Please feel free to remove it, haha. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored terrorism

Hi. In reverting edits regarding State-sponsored terrorism, you struck a problem I've been seeing which I think is a shortfall of the review process.

I spotted the same thing you did in that the user correctly cited one reference, then attempted to use Wikipedia as a source in his next two edits. I manually allowed his first edit (with the proper citation), but the problem we have is that we can't seem to revert 1 or 2 spurious edits without deleting all, which is unfair and discouraging to the user.

I posted a comment about about the problem here.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I purposely did a rollback to revert all instead of revert without rollback in this case because the reference of mumbaimirror only stated the findings of the investigations and was actually countering the statement "India has been accused of not prosecuting" rather than backing it, instead showing that investigations were on. Moreover the reference is old and obsolete and there have been various new findings in the case and trial has started which is closely tracked by media in South Asia.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Su-30MKI

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Su-30MKI. The user with IP address 200.3.178.222 was not intending to vandalize wikipedia and the information he changed was in fact incorrect. Thank you. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets ?

these two users appear to be same Pakistanfanforeva (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) and Pakistan Zindabad 2010 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). The 2nd account was started few days after 1st one was blocked and both like to edit Pakistan with same POV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True!! I am, however, quite busy in my personal life presently and cannot devote mush time to wikipedia. I thus suggest you initiate a check user and sockpuppet investigation request so you can keep track of it. I will hop in whenever I am free. Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanfanforeva--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad

An IP seems to be making constructive edits to the ABVP article. The info that he removed was totally un needed for a Wikipedia article. This is just to let you know. Have a good day. TheMike •Wassup doc? 12:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Stop targeting other editors. The reference i added to Indo-Pak war of 1965 is a government sponsored and a reliable source. As in case of operation Dwarka provide a source which provides Pakistani Naval Failure. The reference i provided links to Indo-Pak naval war so don't go out of the way. Battle of Lahore was a stalemate and provide a neutral reference which says that India won a tactical victory other than Hagerty which gives an overall view of war. Thank you. You can answer on my page. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on talk pages of the articles.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R&AW edits

Hi recently you have added a paragraph on 'Hijack of Indian Airlines Fokker Friendship aircraft Ganga' at the operation section of article on R&AW, you have cited two main websites as your sources, none of the sources namely [4] and [5] connect R&AW with plotting the hijacking. Hence, in absence of any neutral sources, to draw a conclusion that the hijacking was a false flag operation executed by R&AW would amount to WP:OR, therefore I would request you to either add authentic NPOV sources or remove the para. LegalEagle (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Globalsecurity is a neutral source and clearly states "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement. However soon the extent of RAW's involvement was made public." Indian govt had attributed them to Kashmiris according to plan, but Pakistan and the rest of the world later came to know that was done by R&AW.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry my mistake, didnt read the GS article carefully. LegalEagle (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I was trying to find more sources to back up the claim, could you also help in better citing the para. LegalEagle (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly find more sources. Here is one more source.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into sources; I would suggest that if possible we should look for generally accepted NPOV and neutral sources like say respectable news paper reports, committee briefs, policy drafts etc. if these are unavailable we should look at opinions (and therefore by definition POV) in blogs, chat rooms etc. However a serious allegation of false flag operation against a state organ should not be ideally based on a single neutral source and should be supported by a few accepted neutral ref citations. LegalEagle (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This [6] is a forum page completely unreliable as source but makes nice contextual read on the hijacking issue. After trawling internet for last few hours I could not find a neutral reliable NPOV source except for GS article which supports R&AW involvement in Ganga hijacking case (incidentally the GS article uses the word 'allegedly' when describing the hijacking incident in no other instance of R&AW operation as discussed in the same article is the word 'alleged' used, so prima facie there are some doubts in the mind of GS writers on the authenticity of the claim). Interestingly Lahore HC categorically dismissed the idea that hijackers were Indian agent (most would agree that judicial decisions can be generally taken to be reliable). After every major security breach there are always conspiracy theories which suggests that intelligence agencies planned it as a flase flag op (happened in case of kaniskha bombing, IC 814 hijacking, 9/11 & 7/7 attacks, indian parliament attacks etc.) Thus in my opinion we need to bolster the claim with NPOV neutral reliable source which unambiguously connects R&AW to the hijacking. LegalEagle (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be hard to get neutral sources in this matter since international media was not interested in following up the story after the hijacking crisis was over. However we certainly multiple reliable sources from India and Pakistan, with both sides accepting the Operation was carried out by R&AW. Here are some reliable Indian and Pakistani sources giving information about the operation. It also contains interview of one of the hijackers after he was released from Pakistani jail after 30 years. 1 2 3 UplinkAnsh (talk)
Quite good research on the sources but again the article in Dawn as well as Rediff does not mention R&AW by name and the Pakistan Daily article cannot be classified as neutral given that the article is titled 'RAW: Indian Intelligence Agency, A CRAVING WHORE' which would signify considerable bias. Hashim Qureshi always denies being an Indian agent (I dont expect him to accept it even if it was the truth) and in fact he wrote (giving veiled threat of legal action) to a newspaper which published an article which said that he was acting as an agent provocateur. Thus I believe that we should look for sources which gives a balanced view and is generally neutral, authentic and reliable and must name R&AW by name as instigator or perpetrator of the hijacking operation. LegalEagle (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UplinkAnsh, as there has been no NPOV reliable source which names R&AW as the agency responsible (and not merely alleges) for the hijack, I believe we should remove the relevant section from the article. Or on the alternative we can merge it with the wider Bangladesh war related operation and allege the hijack on R&AW (with proper citation) and give a brief exposition as to its overall ramification. On a separate note I was quite amazed to find that there is no wiki article on Ganga hijacking, I suggest that you should write an wiki article on the hijacking, I strongly believe that you have found enough sources to write a NPOV article on the hijacking itself. I would be happy to collaborate you on such an article. Do share your thoughts LegalEagle (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I would create the article, but I am super busy in personal life for at least a couple of days. I would not find any time to dedicate to wikipedia. I would start the article and discuss about it with you later. Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

I really liked your maps, specially on Gettysburg Campaign. I would like to do something similar for the Lahore Front of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and would thus request you to guide or help me create a map of battles around Lahore. Could you please tell me which software did you use to create the maps and movement of troops?? Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the compliment. I use Adobe Illustrator CS5 – since I do so many maps, the purchase price was easily justifiable. I assume that any vector-based program that supports multiple layers, such as Inkscape, would work just as well. For the base layers of topographical information, such as mountains and rivers, I take an existing map and use it as a template to trace a simplified version of these features. For instance, Google maps have a Terrain view that can be used for this. For the American Civil War, there are many maps sources available, including the excellent West Point Atlas, which is a public domain resource created by the US government. I cannot give you any advice on finding base maps for your war. Then I create layers that include the important road and railroad networks and the towns that existed during the era, those that are most relevant to the battle. The final layers on top show the troop positions and movements based on my historical research. There is a Milhist page with info on mapmaking: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating_maps. Despite the guidance on this page, I do not use the SVG format for my maps because I find that there are a variety of font deficiencies, although I think that I am probably in the minority of Wikipedia map makers with that opinion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi UplinkAnsh and thanks for the barnstar(s)! Actually I had forgotten to thank you for the earlier one. Shovon (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really had earned it, through dedication and hard work.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, UplinkAnsh. You have new messages at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tibet Autonomous Region

You need to watch this article too. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that article too, but neither contains any mention of politics of the region. It seems politics of the region is being systematically censored off the main article about Tibet and not given any weight, which is against wikipedia policy.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say censor one more time...and the ANI will be filed –HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For gods sake stop threating for asking to be civil. You seem to be intent to threaten or discourage multiple editors don't agree with you, away from wikipedia. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contention

i would like to discuss some points you may found noticeable after which you can block me which i know that i would be in a matter of few weeks. Indian sources provided in the article (The battle At Lahore front) would definitely support their point of view as this is a natural feeling and there is nothing wrong about it. But in doing so others sentiment should also be taken into consideration. Am i right?

There are couple of references which point out Pakistani victory at Lahore front, I am giving them one by one:

1. Seventeen September days, Aziz Beg, Babur and Amer Publications, 1966 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 9 Jan 2006 (Remained a leading defense writer of his country)

2. Battle for Pakistan, John Fricker, I. Allan, 1979 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 29 Aug 2008 ISBN 0711009295, 9780711009295 (Foreign writer, used the word decisive for Pakistani victory on Lahore front pg. 176)

3. Pakistan meets Indian Challenge, Brig, Gulzar Ahmed, Al Mukhtar Publishers, 1967 Original from the University of Michigan (Participated in 1965 war and recorded his views)

4. The Pakistan Army, 1965 war, Maj. Gen Shuakat Riza, Service book club, 1984 ( Was Sub co of 6th Armoured division and noted Pakistani victory at lahore with reasons)

5. A history of the Pakistan army: wars and insurrections, Brian Cloughley, Oxford University Press, 2006 ( Noted the above mentioned features)

Now if i add them and then these are removed then same legal actions should be taken against one who revert them with lame excuses. Well the demand of justice is this. I don't want to win or lose something but trying to produce some literary work and manipulating others words is a mere travesty. Thank you and sorry for taking too much time. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will surely look into those and get back to you. Also no one wants to block but disruptive editing is absolutely nonconstructive and so should not be done. Regards. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your inexcusable behaviour on Talk:Tibet

Don't you dare go there. I can retort with high sharpness and causticity, so you better watch it. I ask that you stay away from talking falsely about conduct and babbling on about what you don't know enough about, which is me. And don't ever call me "Roundtable". I've had enough with only one IP barging in at Talk:Tibet and ranting on what is my Talk Page, ridiculously calling me "English connoisseur" here.

Since I would rather not display fireworks on an article talk, we take it here... I am fed up enough with you that I would like to file an ANI on you, but what improvement in you would the community see, eh?

Regarding "editors that do not agree with you need not be taken seriously". Don't you dare go there with that lowly tactic. You know close to nothing about me as a user, so stay away from talking falsely about conduct and babbling on about what you don't know enough about, which is me. As I have alluded to at that talk page, I will not agree all the time with John Hill and Greg Pandatshag as I do with a user such as Quigley, but their experience and quality of edits (at least with Greg) by default force others to take them seriously.

That you are so quick to accuse others of "censorship" is what I consider a sneaky but severe personal attack. It's not censorship (at least on my part) if it has not been removed entirely from the article. I've had enough with such accusations, firstly in this case where I had simply moved material around to avoid WP:UNDUE weight.

Also, you are too lazy with your RVs. Instead of blindly RV-ing to a previous revision, remove only the parts that you dislike, namely the insertion of the Ming Dynasty section, which I did not support (as of yet) either as there was only one source used. I doubt you could seriously disagree with small edits like this. Be more careful.

And don't ever call me "Roundtable". I've had enough with only one IP barging in at Talk:Tibet and ranting on what is my Talk Page, ridiculously calling me "English connoisseur" here. --–HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not had any knowledge of your discussions with Reference Desker and my intent was only to maintain civility on article and that was all I requested. I have never stepped out of civility while discussing on wikipedia and expect and request the same from other editors. I would like myself and other senior editors to encourage new editors to edit wikipedia and not to discourage and threaten them away. If you think the editor in question was stepping out of civil boundary(which certainly seems the case) you should have made a request similar to the one I made to you rather than asking other editors not to that editor seriously like what you did here. I would suggest you to keep cool while in discussion. Now you are going after me threating me and reverting my edits edits because I asked you to be civil.

Also note you are trying to blame your behavior as a vengeance for the uncivil behavior of a new IP 91.76.20.199 in January which might not have known wikipedia rules. I do not know if this is Reference Desker's IP but even if it is, this cannot justify your trying to make other editors ignore him even 3 months after the incident.

I would again request you not to target users and concentrate on the matter with statements like "I am fed up enough with you that I would like to file an ANI on you". Also stop Wikibulling, as already requested, by threating certain actions. I would rather request you to approach ANI so I would get a chance to present my point. Even though the discussion was on, you persuaded the administrator that had protected to remove the protection on the page so you could make changes which you like. None of the points discussed have been addressed except Ming section seems to have been removed. The main article still contains a hatnote(placed by you) that clearly specifies that the article is only about economy and culture suggesting politics and other sections need not be added. I past this has been used by editors to discourage other editors to develop the article and add sections like politics. This can be seen on talk page of the article.

Regarding censorship I certainly think that it was censorship since none of the article about Tibet contained any section about politics until I added it in the article. Even then certain editors(not you) were continuously reverting it in attempts to remove it. Even now it has been moved in history to reduce it's weight while make it seem like politics is not important and present Tibet is absolutely without politics.

Lastly I would suggest if you don't want to be called something don't sign with that name. I had used the HXL49 name first but got confused by your signature and changed it later. Regards--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of what to call me is still suspicious since my signature includes my screenname, unless your eyesight happens to be poor. The suggestion that that would be Reference Desker's IP is quite ludicrous. If it were, he would be treating me quite harshly. Users simply can't improve their behaviour so quickly in 3 months.
"Blame my behavior". That is yet another piece of false propaganda from you. I had only said that that editor had called me "Roundtable" and since then I have been especially wary of such tactics. If it is not a result of misunderstanding, please do not distort what I have said and presented to you. I blame the vast majority of my actions (good or not) on myself.
"Reverting your edits" and "censorship". Again, I have not RM-ed the introduction to the events surrounding 1950–1951 from the lede of either the Tibet or Tibet AR article. My only wish with regards to that sentence was to punish Reference Desker, and I have stated this several times. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you to verify my statements here and here. I was in a rush and missed out your name. Also you are again making personal attacks "your eyesight happens to be poor".

"The suggestion that that would be Reference Desker's IP is quite ludicrous." you yourself implied it since the statement "I've had enough with only one IP barging " was made in reply to my request to being civil to Reference Desker. Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I've had enough with only one IP barging" happened to be a response to your request. It was really a response to your calling me "Roundtable". Either you are convoluting or you are not thinking
"your eyesight happens to be poor" is not an outright (or even subdued) personal attack. Calling it one is ridiculous. That you typed it correctly the first time and changed it to "Roundtable" is either an extreme example of carelessness or pure malice. Either one is not a good reflection on you.
I will let you go on. Whether you leave a good image of yourself is your task. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work on Tibet, man!

Great! I am learning from your work..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need comments on this RFC - [| discussion]

Need your views and comments. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Pir_pass

This article has been vandalized by Pakistanis. I'm going to need backup and some help getting this page done right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Pir_pass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.204 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiConference India 2011


Hi UplinkAnsh,

The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form.

But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach.

As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011


Your opinion is welcomed on deletion

I have marked Submarine operations, 1971 for deletion as this article constitute copy paste from other better written articles, original research and much content is 'cited' from forum PakDef.Info Kindly present your view here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine operations, 1971. Swift&silent (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Rakshak RS or Not discussion

I would like to inform that an discussion is ongoing about Bharat-Rakshak here [7] with the OP's argument that 'since PakDef isnt a RS'. Your opinion will be appreciated. Thanks! Swift&silent (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
I often see your collaborative attitude in edits all over India related articles. In recognition of the past teamwork and for all future teamwork, please accept this barnstar! Zuggernaut (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly notice

I hope you are not commenting to all my edits over different articles following my contributions list because that constitutes wikihounding. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No these articles are on my watchlist--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. I've opened up a discussion for the recent rv. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lahore Front for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lahore Front, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lahore Front until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]