| Revision as of 18:26, 22 July 2006 editTrueblood (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,488 edits →easy← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:41, 23 July 2006 edit undoViscious81 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,954 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| this passage is in the satanic verses article, which has a more extensive timeline of the controversy. check out the article, is that enough?--] 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | this passage is in the satanic verses article, which has a more extensive timeline of the controversy. check out the article, is that enough?--] 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==please help if you can== | |||
| i read ,amazingly if true, that sunderbans are not natural forestlands, but manmade ones. and most likely to be implanted by britishers during their colonial rule. as a proof of it, it is known that the trees in sunderbans are in a straight line contrary to the principles of nature where they should have been in random order as seen on all the natural jungles. if anyone can vindicate or reprove it by via authetic source i shall be grateful to him | |||
| email: nidhishsinghal123@yahoo.com | |||
| --] | |||
Revision as of 22:41, 23 July 2006
help me in using my talk page
--nids 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC) nidhish
Welcome!
Hello, Viscious81, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tone 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
nids 16:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)nids
easy
many people of the not too intelligent variety tried to downplay the affair by arguing totally beside the point that the ban didn't matter much, since hardly any Indian can read Rushdie's English.
removing passages like this does not qualify as vandalism, not in my book. you did not give any reasons for your changes. maybe you can explain a little what you want to say on the article's talk page...
please don't threaten so quickly and sign your comments--trueblood 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
your style was hardly neutral, Nidhishsinghal. If you are quoting someone, provide your source before complaining that you are reverted. Please see WP:NPOV. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
yep, gimme the link, the quote would be interesting, i think the article already said, that rushdie apologized at some point. maybe somebody took that off. i have a look.--trueblood 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
After the death of Khomeini in 1989, Rushdie published an essay in 1990, In Good Faith, to appease his critics and issued an apology in which he seems to have reaffirmed his respect for Islam. However, Iranian clerics did not retract the fatwa..
this passage is in the satanic verses article, which has a more extensive timeline of the controversy. check out the article, is that enough?--trueblood 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
please help if you can
i read ,amazingly if true, that sunderbans are not natural forestlands, but manmade ones. and most likely to be implanted by britishers during their colonial rule. as a proof of it, it is known that the trees in sunderbans are in a straight line contrary to the principles of nature where they should have been in random order as seen on all the natural jungles. if anyone can vindicate or reprove it by via authetic source i shall be grateful to him email: nidhishsinghal123@yahoo.com --nidhishsinghal