Hosta

Hi - I'm definitely pleased to hear from you in this way. I don't know if you noticed, but I commented some time ago that I respect your intelligence and capabilities. I share your desire to talk and deal in a frank and respectful way. I definitely apologize for any unintended pain I may have caused you. There's a problem with the header you used and I'll explain it to you below.

You asked me to assume good faith but not once did I get the same from you. I think the first time I came across you was reading that ANI report where you accused me of bias and attacked the blocks on Szhaider and Nadirali - did you really try to understand why they were blocked? I don't think so. You didn't see any problem in assailing me as one of the biased, pro-Hindutva editors. How many times did I say I was not trying to feud with you? I told you repeatedly that I did not enjoy pressing the block button. I even told you that I would unblock you if you just committed to changing your ways. Then your unblock reviewer suggests the idea, Fowler pushes it and you accept it. It is not good enough that no unblock reviewer thought that the block was unjustified - you assume that I was out to get you. For your case, I had asked several senior admins what they thought, if I had abused the block button, but they approved of the block. Your block was reset afresh to 2 weeks, notwithstanding the few days that had passed becoz you abused that prior block. I tried explaining my rationale to you several times, but was bumped off. I had warned you before blocking you. Then during your block, I tried to reason with you. I informed you of the policies once, warned you a couple of times on separate occasions. I also expect you to be fully aware of what you do and what the policies are after getting the very first warning. Yet, I was repeatedly bumped off, not only on your talkpage but on PakHub, where Nadirali and yourself have insulted me.

I understand that you're from Denmark and that English is not your strongest language. But I was not mistaken in reading your comment about Jews, because that's what the words read - you were wrong in writing like that if you didn't actually mean it. If you choose to think that I twisted your meaning, I will tell you "welcome to the real world," where one must be very careful about what one says and does. Your activities at PakHub and editing here are not exempt. I also believe that you are importing the agenda under which you founded PakHub (assuming you are the founder), to reclaim Pakistan's history/heritage. You've posted the same kind of comments on your userpage and in statements across several article and user talkpages. Your editing and the disputes you've been involved in are entirely about that. You're basically claiming that Indians and others have "ripped off" Pakistani history and denied 160 million people their history. PakHub becomes an issue only because you and others are importing your views here. The only reason I brought the ANI report on PakHub was becoz it just looked like Nadirali, Nishan-e-Haider and you were trying to collude on something, perhaps try and retaliate against Wikipedia. Recently, there have been many cases of stalking both on the web and in real life, so I was obviously concerned about what you guys were saying about me. Call me alarmist, but I thought it necessary for people on ANI to know about this - I was also not clear myself on what to do and sought advice. If you felt I was insulting you in doing this, what can I say? Obviously you and Nadirali didn't think twice about badmouthing me on your own private forum.

I've replied to your points, so I'll turn to the larger question. "Our Disputes" is wrong because you and I don't have any disputes. Whatever I did as an administrator was to serve Wikipedia and whatever you did, you did for your own reasons. I never tried to portray you, Nadirali or Szhaider as bigots - your respective comments read and sounded bigoted. I don't care what you or anybody else thinks of me - and I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense. You are completely entitled to your views on any and every subject, including me. I respect your intelligence and I never blocked you for that. If you guys wanna bash me at PakHub or here, go ahead. If you wanted to properly discuss and protest your blocks, you could post on your own talkpage, your unblock request privileges, e-mail others. Wikipedia provides many opportunities to get your side of the story out there. When these didn't produce the result you wanted, you went to your own private forum to do and say what you wanted.

I have some very strong personal opinions that I do my best to never bring here. You should also edit simply to build an encyclopedia, nothing else. Keep your Pakhub work at Pakhub and use only facts that can help the encyclopedia. When you do discuss issues of great sensitivity, you should offer respect to others and try to honestly understand them. On the India (disambiguation) issue, I repeatedly told y'all that its about conventional usage, but I found you becoming more and more obstinate. If you say that conventional usage is wrong, that's an argument for the scholarly world, not an encyclopedia. For example, Ayesha Jalal has proposed some new and controversial ideas about Jinnah's role in partition - well and fine. She took her ideas to the scholarly world, where they are being debated. If it becomes the consensus view in a few years, so be it. But Jalal did not try rephrase every Jinnah and partition-related article in an encyclopedia to incorporate her view. Britannica and Encarta have not incorporated her view, her work or even consider her notable enough for a bio. Sure, in her biography here and the Jinnah article here "informs, not discusses" this idea, but that's it. On the RfCs and at WT:INWNB, you kept restating your views with obstinacy while insulting other participants by asking for "other, neutral, uninvolved" users to comment. Either you didn't feel the others were worthy enough to discuss with or you wanted to drag this on till someone from somewhere came along and agreed with you.

You will perhaps like to know that I spent my first months as an editor quarrelling with another editor - you can visit the relics of these quarrels at Talk:Purushottam Das Tandon, Talk:Indian nationalism, Talk:Gandhism. While I was feeling hurt, insulted and angry at his attitude, I made an effort and looked at what he was saying with a cool mind and realized that I was editing in the wrong way for all the wrong reasons. I had flooded those articles with a lot of data, but unfortunately completely loaded with my POV. I didn't think it was wrong and I was thus insulted when neutrality tags were slapped on the articles I had spent hours writing. Now I asked myself whether I wanted to help write an encyclopedia and the answer came a resounding "yes." If I had had some other ideas, about just blowing off steam, imposing my views on Gandhism and Indian nationalism without understanding how to write "an encyclopedia," I would have made the decision to leave the editing community here to their work and not try to meddle in affairs that I did not actually feel like working on.

The problems you need to deal with is not with me - its with Wikipedia, an encyclopedia and if you want to help build it. We are all here for that purpose alone - nothing else matters. Rama's arrow 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: British India was an informal term even in the times of British Raj. Queen was called "Empress of India rather than British India. Even the names of dept. were Indian Civil Service, Indian Postal Service. Even passports mentioned the citizenship as "Indian" rather than "British Indian". Indians were British subject rathers citizens. I have concluded from our 2-month long corespondence that you have very little or no arguments to offer. BTW "POV pusher" is hardly an insult (Nadirali & Szhaider have had more colourful insults to throw at me), given that Nadir is blocked for editwarring. And also kindly stop messaging me, i'm not talking to genocide deniers. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 04:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]