User talk:Taaoo

Welcome!

Hi Taaoo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! , The Ogre 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhati/Bhatti merger

I finally got around to starting merger discussions at Talk:Bhatti. Your comments would be appreciated. TimBentley 03:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to finishing the merge into Bhatti. I still don't know much about the subject, so feel free to fix any errors (or whatever). TimBentley 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Suri

We have to say Sher Shah sent the letters. Shivraj Singh 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ur version is still not correct on Sher Shah page. On rajput page you will have to figure out what we did on Sher Shah. Figure what is acceptable and let me know. Do not insist on the word muslim rajput appearing on main rajput page.

Shivraj Singh 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look what ever you want to read from my message is up to you. Bottomline is word muslim rajput cannot appear on main rajput page. The quicker you get over it the better it is to move on. Focus on your page and not disruption. Shivraj Singh 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sammel you are trying to hide that sher Shah sent the letter. Make that clear. Shivraj Singh 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are not differentiating between a claim and acceptance of the claim. In my very first post on Wikipedia, where some muslim had challenged that rajputs were pushovers in battles, which caused me to write the invasion section, (U can look it up in Archives section of talk page), I mention that near my village there is a village of muslims who descended from rajputs. These guys celebrate Diwali/Holi etc. We donot go about telling them to not call themselves muslim rajputs. We do not accept them as rajputs i.e we do not have family ties with them. Shivraj Singh 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sher Shah compare my version to yours and figure out. No need for another debate. Shivraj Singh 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs in our area are referred to as Kunwar Sahab/Hukum or Thakur Sahab and that is how everyone there referes to us including the ranghars. We do not address them as such. So I know it is not what you like but that is what it is. A widow marriage example is irrelevant because statistical anomalies do exist. What matters is was everyone engaged in such behavior. Shivraj Singh 22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims are not referred to as Hukums rather as Maulana. Original home near Mandore. What about you? BTW you still have not made the change on Sher Shah page. Shivraj Singh 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim soul

I think I just realized what you intended to say with the infamous "Muslim soul" statement :) It occurred to me that "Islam" is really the literal Arabic translation of Sanskrit "Bhakti", so yes, a Muslim is a Bhakta, and a Bhakta is a Muslim. The statement may go down better with the Singhs, maybe, if you state that, equivalently, every Muslim has a Bhakta soul ;) just a thought, since the bhakti article itself states that the concept of "devotion to the godhead" is essentially the same in all religions. dab (ᛏ) 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need to decide whether Shivraj is "right". There are evidently two differing points of view (although both remain unsourced as of now), and Shivraj is clearly right according to one pov, but he refuses to admit the existence of the other. He would be perfectly free to document his side of the fence, if he didn't intervene with the other side. I do believe that Shivraj's view is a widely held among Hindu Rajputs of Rajasthan (although nobody pointed us to an actual reference), so he is "right" in a way. But Rajasthan is not the world, and if matters lie differently in the Punjab, then we'll have to tell the other side of the story. Whichever way it comes out, I will just insist that proper sources are quoted. The "References" section of the Singh's version is a bad joke, and even just listing book titles is not enough, you need to actually say what's in the book and what isn't. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can get there. We cannot solve the Indian-Pakistani issues on Wikipedia, but we can arrive at a serious article, presenting all sides. This is the only thing I am committed to here, since I have no way of knowing what "really" happened short of reading up on it in books. dab (ᛏ) 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we cannot aspire to "make people think outside their mindset". For every pov-pusher who is reformed in weeks of debate, five fresh fanatics will show up. No, the only way is to enforce WP:5P, politely first, but without compromise. To make this clear to everyone reading this: unsourced "Muslim" pov will be unacceptable as much as any other unsourced pov. My patience may be wearing thin at times, and then I'll just take a break and be back later, but there are many reasonable people around here. People who cannot grasp the term "encyclopedia" will not prevail, but they can be a waste of time, this is the drawback of our system here. The dispute will also never be "over", but the article can be improved step by step. It is horrible right now, and I am counting on you to build it as fairly as you can, founding each statement in literature if possible. If you feel burnt out, take a break. I've been on Wikipedia for some 17 months now, and I've seen worse than this (there are many nationalist causes in this world, the Indian ones are just one fragment of these). dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram, my dear khurram, forgive me. Just please forgive my words, I can make long cases of defence and whatnot, but eventually I have no quarrel with you. Your ideas are so noble that I feel ashamed of my small-minded "common dominance/violence background" statement on dabachmann's talkpage. I saw your acceptance of Bachmann's idea that "Islam" and "Bhakti" have the same meaning, and I felt it was too much. Anyway I will not go into defences; many of us have problems with English and I think that is a big part of the misunderstanding here.

I think I am getting too involved in "fundamentalist" issues, and so I am going to pursue other interests on WP for some time. I am in the situation of having issues with both camps, this is the sad situation in which many, many people in India are placed at the moment. However, your courtesy and temperance ensure that you are not the "equal and opposite" of that other mob, and I do hope to have a good working relationship with you on WP in future, something I am rapidly losing hope of ever being able to do with those others. ImpuMozhi 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ijtihad

Well, not only Sunni scholars matter... Schnact is important... although not the only view. To deny that there is the concept of the close of the gate of ijtihad for Sunnis would be silly... but there should be debate on if it's a proper label. As far as I understand Shia imams have historically had more leeway since they have more power in general. However, there's no room to really discuss it on Islam. gren グレン 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisesabre and Rajput

Am thankful to Raja and to you for your participation in the discussions. Can I request you to have a word with User:Wisesabre regarding reverts on Rajput please? As you can see, it is not helping our efforts of reaching some sort of consensus. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm afraid, WP:3RR is broken once again by User:Wisesabre today for Rajput. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bro i cant cite any refernces because first of all my university library does not hosts any book on these sort of topics, secondly Punjab public library is not going to issue me any books (they dont issue to under graduates).thirdly I myself is not much intersted in Rajputi.

That is why im Counting on You. I assure you that im not going to edit Rajput article again and I wont indulge my self in any edit war there, other then if you request.

I totally Agree with you Wisesabre 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link.

Actually Saqib Saud is my real name and Saif Ullah is to whom im most inspired. Wisesabre 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]