Jump to content

User talk:Abecedare/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Renaming an article : Need your help

One editor has suggested renaming the article 'Indian astronomy' and I find his points genuine. Pleasse see the points in Talk:Jyotisha under 'Jyotisha and Astronomy' and under 'Article name proposal' and give your suggestions. -Vinay Jha 06:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious scriptures

Interesting idea, adding religious scriptures as primary sources. Are you talking about the Dead Sea scrolls or the King James Bible? – Dreadstar † 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Both. Along with Vedas, Koran etc; perhaps even the writings of Sayana and Thomas Aquinas etc. I would interpret the term expansively to cover almost any historical document whose interpretation is the subject of innumerable PhD thesis and scholarly debates and thus not an appropriate subject for anonymous wikipedians to analyze (of course, selective quoting to simply state what the document says is appropriate, when accompanied by analysis by secondary sources).
Also see earlier discussion, which unfortunately I never pursued to actual implementation. Abecedare 06:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting stuff. My first thought is that most of the religious documents available today, like the Christian Bible, aren't primary sources but secondary sources...if not tertiary. But man, I can only imagine the arguments around that one! That's a touchier subject than ID/Creationism...another 'stay far, far away from" for me...;) – Dreadstar † 08:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL :-)
To get a glimpse of how much goes into interpreting each nuance of even the Christian Bible in modern times, see Second Vatican Council - and that just provides a narrow update to the official Catholic theology! Now you can imagine, the pitfalls of allowing anonymous, lay, wikipedian editors (with possible COIs) arguing whether Koran sanction Jihad or not based on selective quotes from the text (and this is not a hypothetical example). And here is an article on the recensions of the Hindu Vedas, which shows the complexity involved in even quoting a scripture accurately. Politics and evolution are child's-play in comparison :-) Abecedare 08:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts, misinterpretations

AB, I am not here for any edit conflict. I just felt it is necessary to check if everything is put fine. For the last 3 days from what I'm seeing it is very clear that not everything is cited as it is. The meaning of what's written and, what's quoted is different. I do know things are not deliberately done. But, errors need to be rectified. If you are finding my ways wrong, you can let me know the right methods. BalanceRestored 06:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, BalanceRestored 06:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
BR, unfortunately my past experience has been that my attempts at explaining the "right method" to you has not been fruitful, which undoubtedly is partially my shortcoming as a coach. My frank opinion is that that your recent "challenges" to the second and third sentence of the Vedas article, though probably well-intentioned, show an ignorance of both the subject matter and wikipedia policies; but I know that you are not going to simply take my word for it and stop. Since you currently are an adoptee, I would recommend instead that you ask your mentor (or any "trusted" editor) for advice on the policy and subject matter. Abecedare 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am surely using your tools, I think I do have certain drawbacks understanding certain English wordings, as they are tricky. Certain times I find things different from what's written and what's cited. So, I better try asking neutral people, may be you are right about the same. I respect your view points but again, not always you should be correct. And, not always you too, should have been taught the right. Well, I am a human, I could have blocks understanding things.BalanceRestored 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
BR, If you'll forgive me offering unsolicited advice, my simple suggestion to you would be to take a week off and spend the time reading some standard text on the subject of Hinduism/Vedas to get a good basic understanding of the overall field, rather than argue on the basis of snippets and individual (context-less) sentences in google books. Flood (1996), Flood(2003) or Michaels (2004) would be ideal to start with (or read Radhakrishnana's Indian Philosophy Volume 1, if you are partial to an Indian author). If you don't want to buy/borrow them you can even read Muller (2004) or Muir (1861) (also see other volumes listed at John Muir), which you can obtain complete copies of from Google books; although you should be aware that the last two are pretty old and some will argue scholarly but "unenlightened" by present day norms. (I am just listing texts that I am personally knowledgeable about and that are cited on Vedas; there may be other equally good books too).
Once you are able to discuss matters from a position of knowledge rather than from ignorance (e.g., "we don't know the truth/everything" or "you may be wrong" ) you will be taken much more seriously on wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare 08:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rgveda Dating Controversy

DAB has resorted to abuses for others more than any other editor. See Talk:Utpala where he abused me without any provocation. See Talk:Rgveda (esp. Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating), where instead of answering any of the points raised by me about his edits, he labelled fictious charges against me, as he did in Surya Siddhanta. Is Wikipedia his personal property ? Differences must happen in democracies, but DAB does not tolerate dissension and starts abusing even his elders. My students are heads of departments but I can remain in Wiki only if I try to get accustomed to abuses. I merely wanted to inform you; nothing is going to happen because I can withstand greater abuses. I am not a Hindutva fanatic, but DAB deliberately wants to portray me like that, because he has no answer to my questions and at most can cite "mainstream" which often means dictatorship of one POV. If you discuss Newton's or Einsteins's theories, can you not enlist exceptions and shortcomings, if any, in those theories? Will it make you a Hindutva fanatic? I raised technical points and DAB replied like a fighter : who is a fanatic in fact ? --Vinay Jha 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, I respect the knowledge of primary Sanskrit texts that you have demonstrated; I also respect the knowledge of Dab in this field and his contribution in writing and maintaining numerous related wikipedia pages - so I sincerely hope that you two (and others) will be able to work out any content dispute amicably without personalizing the debate. If not, you could consider using one of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.
As for the particular point of contention viz. dating the Rigveda : I haven't read through the discussion in detail so I'll only make the general observation that, as a tertiary source, wikipedia simply presents the mainstream point(s)of view as reflected by reputable secondary sources - irrespective of whether they are true or false. So even if one discovers an obvious flaw in Einstein's/Newton's work, wikipedia is not the place to point it out; on the other hand if reputable physicists have published research about the flaw in peer-reviewed physics journals, of course wikipedia should quote that.
Finally, if you think that your real-world academic credentials will help you edit wikipedia more effectively, you can have your credentials verified - barring that it is likely that advertising your student's achievements, experience or conference contributions will result in some editors taking your words less seriously. I point this out not to belittle your scholarship, but only because as a new editor here you may not yet be familiar with the wikipedia culture and some past controversies. Regards. Abecedare 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I already said nothing will happen because I can tolerate greater abuses. I have consistently kept a safe distance from articles which I found DAB was interested in. I am keeping away from Rgveda article too, because once I tried to rectify DAB's errors in a polite way, without touching his errors I added the correct etymology, which he deleted and said that this article was not a place for etymology, but gave a wrong etymology himself, which he has now corrected when I used his own language against him. Unless I quarrel with him, he will never listen, and quarrelling is not in my nature. I am a lifelong celibate, and the whole world is my family. DAB is a fine editor. But he has a big mind and a lashing tongue (not for everyone). In how many fields can Jimbo Wales accept my credentials? I am planning to add a small section in precession (astronomy) article because many readers are demanding an explanation of precession formulae, at least in nutshell, but the editors say that the formuls runs into 19 pages. It is not true. I can manage it in short, citing books by Nobel laureates in physics, in which Newtonian equations can be shown as well as their shortcomings (which you say should not be displayed in Wiki), because without displaing this defect in Newton, Einstein's contribution to precession formula cannot be shown, and I can show all this in one or two para in a very simple language. Then, Jimbo Wales will ask me to work in physics and leave Rgveda to DAB. It is not a solution, because Rgveda is like hieroglyphs to DAB. The article on Rgveda mentions everything (which is also useful) excepting the main ideas expressed by the text. If I cannot put substance in such articles, what is the use of wasting my time in Wiki ? I believe I can work with DAB in spite of differences provided he behaves in a civilised manner. If a full list of abuses he has unilaterally hurled at others is compiled, it will almost equal his net contribution to main articles. DAB's knowledge of Indology is superficial and totally based on secondary sources. Secondary sources are of contradictory types, and unless you have an access to primary sources you cannot decide which secondary source is more reliable. He is cipher in descripive and historial linguistics too, but always cites it while dating Vedic texts. I have recently reviewed a debate between M.Witzel and David Frawley, and found Witzel to be using same sour language which DAB uses ( http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/2002/06/25/stories/2002062500030200.htm and http://www.voi.org/indology/ReplytoWitzel.html ). Frawley may represent non-academic viewpoint and perhaps maybe wrong at certain points, but he did not use a single abuse, unlike Witzel. Witzel started with a personal attack. It is not accidental that DAB is a blind follower of Witzel, even in manners. All issues in the world can be solved if you accept others to be equals, as far as civility is concerned. For some persons, fear is the mother of morality. Let me see whether I can work for Wiki or not. I will not complain for an arbitration &c. Thanks again for your kindness, which is a rare commodity in Wiki. -Vinay Jha 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, It is better to discuss these content issues on the talk pages of relevant articles. Since I am not involved the pages you write bout, discussing it with me unfortunately will not be of much use, although if it helps you let off some steam that is fine with me. :-)
A couple of points of note:
  • I never intended to say that one should not criticise Newtonian or relativistic mechanics on wikipedia, and apologize if that is what my comments sounded like! To be clear such discussion is warranted if and only if there are published reputable sources on the particular topic; but if someone discovers a new flaw in either systems, wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that discovery.
  • Secondary sources are the of much greater value on wikipedia than primary sources, so if one needs to refer to primary sources to make a point (i.e. there are no secondary published sources available for the purpose), the content is not appropriate for wikipedia. In this aspect an encyclopedia like wikipedia differs markedly from a peer-reviewed journal, as I have discussed with you before.[1]
A final point: wikipedia editing is a voluntary activity that we all undertake for the enjoyment and satisfaction in building this knowledge source. So I hope you will rediscover the pleasure of editing here and brush aside the interpersonal conflicts that arise sometimes in the process. Regards and happy editing. Abecedare 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time, and thanks for your suggestions. -Vinay Jha 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. I hope that this content dispute is resolved soon and amicably. Regards. Abecedare 06:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The matter is as simple as WP:RS. It is simply beyond me why these people feel entitled to waste my time without even citing a single peer-reviewed source. I am more than happy to discuss referenced literature, but I simply refuse to explain things to anyone choosing to spill their idiosyncracies on a Wikipedia talkpage. Vinay Jha so far has made a good job of wasting everybody's time. Is it surprising his reception is less than friendly? If he wants to contribute to Wikipedia, let him respect the project's purpose and its rules. I don't know if Vinay is my "elder", and neither does he. It is possible, but irrelevant. In terms of general education, he plainly isn't: his opinions are rife with naive non-sequiturs. He may be venerable Vinayji in the flesh, but on Wikipedia, he has to live with being just another user account bound to the rules. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Vinay Jha's Reply : I had decided to spare you (Abecedare) from this debate. But I found DAB's false charges against me here. Hence I am posting my reply :

I had decided that I will not engage in any acrimonious discussion with DAB because his language was abusive. But now he has decided that he will not allow me to contribute even to talk pages, and then started spreading false rumours about me on talk pages of other editors who do not want to get involved in this mess. DAB has committed following mistakes :

(1)He deleted my well sourced contribution to Rgveda (2 August ,2007) and put his own unsourced and false one. I discussed it on Talk:Rgveda under 'Wrong Etymology of 'Rgveda on Aug-3, refused to mend (Aug-7); I again asked (Aug-10); lastly I used more explicit words pointing at his errors at 16:35, 10 August 2007, and just 4 minutes after he corrected the error.
(2) But this resulted in his ill-will towards me and he called me silly and erratic just two hours later (on Talk:Utpala on 10 August 2007, 15:41 UTC ) without any cause of provocation. It is against Wiki policy of civility. On Abecedares talk page DAB says about me " In terms of general education, he plainly isn't: his opinions are rife with naive non-sequiturs"; it is again a personal attach and insult. But following points will prove the quality of knowledge DAB possesses ( point 4, and 3 ) .
(3) He is still keeping some material in Surya Siddhanta which are WP:OR, in spite of my repeated requests (cf. Talk:Surya Siddhanta); I has replaced it with a correct version which was deleted and I was wrongly charged of OR,POV etc. My weak point was that I was a newcomer and had not anticipated that making contribution today and references later will result in so mush sound and fury. As a result, I resigned from editing that article, although I am an expert of Surya Siddhanta and my Surya Siddhantic softwares (freewares) are recognised and used by reputed government and private organisations.
(4) In the heading 'Introduction' on Talk:Rgveda, DAB defended his wrong etymology of Rgveda by writing details from Sanskrit grammar, trying to show his erudition (22 November,2006). He was sticking to his wrong etymology since last year, but had to correct it when I explicitly pointed to his error(cf. point 1 above). It also proves that he does not know bare essentials of Sanskrit grammar. One should edit only those topics which one knows.
(5) Today he deleted active discussion from Talk:Rgveda and pasted it on my talk page with a new heading ' Questions asked to Vinay Jha about Veda Dating', although the topic Rgvedic Dating was being discussed on Talk:Rgveda since 11 May, 2007 , well before I joined Wiki, and most of the discussion on that talp page related to Vedic Dating, e.g, How Old Is Rgveda? ,Oldest text of Indo-Iranian languages, Dating Claims, Composed versus recorded, Dating information, Rgveda and Jacobi, Dating of RigVeda in Introduction, Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating . DAB cannot allow me to contribute to an ongoing debate on that talk page , although whatever I had expressed was related to the ongoing discussion on that page. He is wrongly using his administrative powers to prevent active discussion aimed at improving the article. In that talk page he charges me of making statements without sources. You can delete unsourced statements from main articles, but if you remove unsourced statements from talk pages, Wiki will be left with not a single talk page. He is asking for WP:RS for contributions on talk pages (cf. in Abecedare's talk page under 'Talk:Rgveda Dating Controversy')! I made some sourced statements on that talk page too, which DAB did not answer. Thereafter, I stopped arguing with him, because I did not want to spoil the environment of Wiki.
(6) I have found a large number of articles in Wikipedia in which DAB has inserted 'dates' of ancient texts without citing any source at all. Dating a text is a technical issue and DAB is behaving like an omniscient dictator whose mistakes cannot be challenged. Either he should remove such statements or give a balanced and well sourced account.

I am not going to leave Wiki in spite of DAB's mibehaviour. I still want cordial relations with him, but I find it is possible only if I become accustomed to his abusive language and instead of working as an editor should become his private assistant, taking orders only from him, because he is now deleting my statements from talk pages which were aimed at improving the main articles. I am posting the present message to Abecedare who is a well wisher of everyone, hoping he may request/persuade DAB to follow rules and behave sanely. If this posting fails to deliver results, I will post it to all the 1278 administrators and other editors. I am not asking for arbitratiom (at least for the time being), I am merely asing for civil and law-abiding rational behaviour. He has admirably collaborated with me in a handful of articles recently, and I am unfortunate that he is now steaming hot at me. -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 13:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, It is fine if you are posting to blow off steam, but I don't see how posting on my talk page helps you achieve your goals which I presume are to contribute to the encyclopedia contents as per (1) your knowledge and (2) wikipedia policies. At the risk of repeating myself I'll note:
  • If you have an issue with an editor/admin conduct that cannot be resolved through discussion with the individual, try reporting it to admin noticeboard or another wikipedia dispute resolution avenue. I hope you'll trust me when I say, that posting any message on all the admin pages is perhaps the quickest way of being labeled a troll and being blocked from editing.
  • I haven't looked into the particulars of the dispute at Rigveda or Surya Siddhanta (and don't plan to), but content disputes on wikipedia are most easily handled by citing reliable and relevant secondary sources. So for example, if you want to include some content on Surya Siddhanta that is being disputed by another editor, simple list one or more published sources and provide quotes on the talk page, with absolutely no other commentary. If you do so, there is absolutely no way you can be accused of original research. After the sources are accepted by involved editors, appropriate wording for the article can be worked out. You can see a couple of examples where I have seen this process work, here and here.
Regards. Abecedare 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Statements

Please contain your hostility towards other contributers on Wikipedia. I have shown 2 sources, and not engaged in anything. Please stop being bias, and showing no proper sources for your claims, and supporting folwer and folwer when he has reverted and keeps changing his argument. We can get an independent arbitrator to see if the quote has relevance. Please conduct yourself with more maturity when handling situations and don't lets your personal feelings come in the ways of facts. Cosmos416 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is no personal attack, and as anyone can tell you are only getting upset because I have shown proper sources, and ask for an arbitrator, since you and folwer are unwilling to listen, and revert without reading the SOURCES, your attitude is making Wikipedia unhealthy. Cosmos416 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop with this ganging up with folwer. You guys are trying to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with you. Everyday You, Folwer, and I can Revert back and forth until you guys are willing to settle this. Cosmos416 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back, as I only reverted once, and you have already twice today, and are unwilling to settle this.

You reason given for the Revert(s) are Unacceptable according to Wiki guideline, and either you Accept or Negotiate a settlement, or we can get someone in power to resolve it.

Show me some concrete Reason(s) with proof (full explanations as I have done), showing how it's redundant. Because if it is (which it is not) we can modify that section to work in the Quote into the Article. Cosmos416 13:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

India

Abecedare, I understand your concern (as I would have about your intentions aswell), and I know I'm acting in good faith, as I have provided a Quotation from a Historian William Dalrymple in article he wrote for TIME Magazine. I have merged the Quotation into the article, supplying 2 reputable sources.

I have also provided the secondary source of Economic Historian and former OCED Head Angus Maddison. The statistical resources in his research in The World Economy: Historical Statistics are also mentioned and provided in the List of regions by past GDP (PPP). I actually have the Maddison book, and will provide more statical data as a secondary source if needed. Cosmos416 15:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgvedic Dating

Please see 'Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions' on Talk:Rgveda. I do not want you to get involved. Just view it, and if I am in the wrong, tell me. Rgvedic Dating is not like the established theories of physics. Hence a rather comprehensive approach is needed, instead of sticking to an inflexible dogma. -Vinay Jha 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, I just read through the two section's Sources for dating estimates and Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions and since you asked, wanted to note a couple of points:
  • Dab is right that Oberlies is cited for the Rigveda dating; see footnote 7 of the article that is linked from Dating and historical reconstruction section. Muller has been cited in the intro, and if this is problematic, it can be easily modified.
  • With all due respect you have chosen a somewhat ineffective approach to argue against the current content:
    • Your argument (to an uninvolved reader) reads more like an argument against "DAB" than a discussion presented to improve the article, since you mention his name about a dozen times in your comment, and often personalize the discussion (example, "whom DAB quotes so often", "DAB could not swallow", "DAB should rethink", "If he is ready to listen"). In contrast, you'll note that Dab does not direct his arguments in Sources for dating estimates at any individual editor (he even writes, "what are our sources for estimates incompatible with the mainstream") but only at the content - which is the right way to discuss issues in a collaborative environment; unlike law courts, wikipedia does not follow the adversarial system to arrive at the "truth".
    • Your second paragraph contains several statements of claimed facts and inferences (example, "... very few layers have been carbon-dated ... ; hence 2450-1750 BC has been accepted ..., and many layers lies submerged ... upper date before 2450 BC"), but no supporting citations. Without explicit citation, this is likely to be treated as original research and hence disregarded by neutral readers.
    • You state: "As for citations, there are many citations in sources DAB has already mentioned." That is good, since citations are exactly what helps on wikipedia. Why don't you specify exactly which reference you are referring to, along with page numbers and quotes ?
    • You also state, "I can give a list of principact anomalies in present theory which are facts, not opinions." ... this is good as long as the facts can be attributed to reputable published secondary sources (make that your mantra on wikipedia and you'll be fine as far as content is concerned :-) )
Note that I am not commenting on the content of the dispute itself, just the style of discussion in this instance. I hope you find my review constructive. Feel free to think over the above points and disregard any that you disagree with. Regards. Abecedare 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestions are all fine and I revised that talk accordingly, without extending it. I have good sources in support of what I an saying. I avoided the list of principal anomalies in order to keep the talk short. Besides, all points cannot be discussed at once. DAB was even refusing a discussion and was only abusing me (in Dark Fall's talk page he again called me insane). He is trying to provoke me so that I could be banned if I call him names in retaliation. I fail to understand why he has so mush ill will towards me, in spite of my toleration of all his abuses. Perhaps my name or country is wrong. Thanks for your advice. -Vinay Jha 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
he doesn't have a source to cite. If he had one, why on earth would he fill pages and pages with complaints, instead of citing his bleeding source, on a single line. Once he cites it, we can include it in the article, no objection from me. How is that "abusive"? The only abuse I can see here is Vinay wasting everybody's time without having the shadow of a case. Vinay Jha, I don't care who you are or where you are from, but if you don't want to be called a nutter, why must you for all the world behave like one? This could be a respectful discussion between grown-ups, if you could understand that what we want to discuss are academic sources, not your latest inspirations. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
VJ is like SCO: in 2003, they claim to have a case. In 2005, after two years of filibustering, they deign to show their material, which turns out to be half-assed and without merit. I am not a lawyer, and nobody pays me for the time wasted by listening to contorted defences of a non-existent case. dab (𒁳) 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question Dating

If I prove you all, that the parameters this authors have taken to find the dating are incomplete, do all the outdated finding still stay?BalanceRestored 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, I've just read WP:NORBalanceRestored 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

There has been sizeable trolling and reverts on several Hinduism- related pages and talkpages by a certain user (whom I think you already know). How could one stop such attitude. Many of the user's contributions| are questionabele too. KH 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I knew how to curtail such behaviour. I have not looked at the totality of his edits ( I have come across him only on the Hinduism/ Talk:Hinduism pages) but perhaps a User RFC is in order. It's unfortunate that such disruptions waste so much of our time on wikipedia, which can else be used more productively. Abecedare 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

my name

Not that it's a big deal but I prefer Swatjester to SJ. For one there is another editor by the name of SJ, and as another it sounds too much like User:Essjay which I would like to avoid. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't even think about the second link. Abecedare 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda

I tolerated all sorts of abuses for one and a half month. Moreschi's unsympathetic response to my complaints (his talk page) last night had compelled me to use the legal warning. I did not know legal warning to DAB is illegal and illegal abuses from DAB are legal in Wiki. After Moreschi imposed a ban, I sent an email stating that I never intend to sue anyone because it will harm me most of all ; legal hassles will disrupt my researches and disturb my peace of mind, but if I am expelled I will be forced to take a resort to legal option which I do not really wish. I was sorry to find that DAB had removed the whole reference in which I had merely added the correct citation from Max Muller. That is why I reverted. Max Muller was already cited, but wrongly. I possess the text from which I gave the true citation. Why anyone should remove a true citation ? That is why I added some harsh comments for DAB, which I am removing at your insistence. But removing Max Muller totally will be an injustice to that great person. I know you want peace, but at what cost ? Why DAB cannot tolerate truth ? Is DAB greater than Max Muller ? If Wiki is someone's personal diary than I should not waste my time in it. -Vinay Jha 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab did not remove the Max Muller citation; he did not even change your addition of "Max Müller said "the hymns of the Rig-Veda are said to date from 1500 B.C." in 7th lecture titled 'Veda and Vedanta' in". Please review his edit.
Your recent edit has now created a mismatch between the lead and the article content, which Dab had corrected earlier, and the additional footnote you added is simply a partial repetition of footnote 7 and hence doesn't serve any purpose. Anyway, I don't mean to spend time on this issue and trust that other regular editors of the article will mend these recent errors.
Also note that, "illegal abuses from DAB" and "if I am expelled I will be forced to take a resort to legal option which I do not really wish." comes pretty close to a legal threat which is liable to lead to your permanent ban from editing wikipedia. I have commented many times on your personalizing the issue (example: "Why DAB cannot tolerate truth ? Is DAB greater than Max Muller ?") so I won't repeat myself. My only aim till date, was to help you gain familiarity with the editing process on wikipedia so that you can contribute to the project more effectively, but since my sincere advice is going unheeded I'll stop my unsolicited interference. Regards. Abecedare 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed all references to any individual from Talk:Rgveda, as you have asked. I do not want your time in that article, but since you have misunderstood me I must inform you that other editors were insisting that all references to dating should be removed from introduction and shifted to dating section (because dating is a moot point which cannot be sumed up in introduction), which DAB was refusing. Now he shifted the reference without shifting the statement to which that reference was originally attached. Since DAB has clearly said today that he does not want to discuss anything with me ("because I have no sources"), where should I discuss it ? The problem is that DAB wants 1700-1100 BC date(a minority view according to DAB), which is at variance with 1500-1000 BC earlier date, but how to explain this 200-year shift ? That is why he is shifting things from here to there and wants to prove there is no controversy. It is a serious academic matter but I am sorry to find that my inappropriate language has caused you to conclude that I have some personal score to settle with DAB. Forget court, I have no interest in that. Regards. -Vinay Jha . 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry to inform that your advice to me at may talk page was misinterpreted by DAB,and he did not even care to examine the good work I did today in improving Rgveda. I corrected some factual errors and added some important missing details (for instance, only one scheme of organisation of verses was there, I added the second scheme ). Division of Rgveda was also not shown properly. But DAB left an insulting message and a veiled threat at my talk page. He thinks I will leave Wiki if I am harassed for some time, but I fail to understand why he hates my good work. He ought to have examined my work today before abusing me ("spoilt child"). -Vinay Jha 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, Vinay, if you check my edit, you will find that I carefully preserved your valid additions, only reverting your flawed edits.[2] I would have been under no obligation to do this, but did it out of courtesy, and in the interest of an improved article. Also, to the best of my knowledge, and according to Monier-Williams, the term for "verse" is ṛc, and no ṛcā ("rchā") as you keep claiming. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, I just looked over the recent edits on Rigveda and saw that Dab had (1) refined/cleaned up the formatting and arrangement of your recent addition, which made them only better, and (2) deleted the redundant footnote from the lead - a correction that I had recommended (on your talk page and above) that you make yourself. So I am not clear which edit you are complaining about ?
I am sure that you realize that on wikipedia everyones edits are (ideally) scrutinized and tinkered with, and crying wolf over legitimate edits that actually improve your work, is liable to make neutral observers ignore even valid complaints. Regards. Abecedare 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
DAB's insistence on putting unsourced dating in introduction in incomprehensible to me. Either he should cite reference there as well, or remove this fuss to dating section and leave a vague statement "very ancient" or "much before the Budhha" as I had done, for which I received the epithet of "a spoilt child". Why an unsourced statement should be at the beginning (although its source is cited in a later section) ?
As for my supposedly wrong claims of rchā for verse, the answer is at Talk:Rgveda. --Vinay Jha 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Q: Why an unsourced statement should be at the beginning (although its source is cited in a later section) ?
A: Because the lead of an article (like the abstract of a paper in an academic journal) provides an overview of the topic, and need not contain explicit citation as long as the stated fact is supported by appropriate citations in the article body.
Q: Why not 'leave a vague statement "very ancient" or "much before the Budhha" ' ?
A: That is a bad idea since it presents the reader with (in your own words) "vague" and less than precise information than can be provided based on citations.
Q: As for my supposedly wrong claims of rchā for verse, the answer is at Talk:Rgveda.
A: That's good, please discuss it there calmly and while assuming good faith.
Abecedare 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Look for my answers (Dating in Introduction) in TALK:Rgveda, if you please. -Vinay Jha 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, Since you asked me specific questions above, I provided you with straightforward answers. However I don't plan to read the Talk page discussions and getting involved with the content dispute. If the above answers and discussion with Dab don't settle the issue you had in mind, I suggest that you request for comments, i.e. invite independent editors' to weigh in. Abecedare 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I had added "if you please", I did not want your involvement. Dont take it otherwise. Sorry. -Vinay Jha 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

External links in India article

As you suggested, I wrote a message on the India talk page, so now if you still have objections to removing these links, discuss it there. BernardM 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for others to comment since I had already expressed my opinion (to you at least). But since no one seems to have responded, I have added my 2 cents. Thanks for initiating this discussion. Abecedare 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rchā / ṛchā versus Rch / ṛch

On Talk:Abecedare , DAB has said that I wrongly claim ṛchā for verse, while Monier-Williams gives ṛc . DAB is right, MW forgot to mention ṛchā, but it is mentioned 13 times in Rgveda : 1.164.39; 2.3.7; 5.6.5; 5.27.4; 5.64.1; 5.64.4; 6.16.47; 8.27.1; 8.27.5; 9.73.5; 10.105.8; 10.165.5; 10.71.11 (the last being ṛchām). In comparison, ṛch in its all its variations occurs only 9 times. If I know primary sources, do not charge me of OR, it will be dishonest to apply rules just to prove your point. I may cite many secondary sources too, eg Sayana, or Wilson, who have duly translated ṛchā . MW accomplished a great work, but there are some lapses for which DAB should not blame me for ignorance. Vinay Jha 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Rigveda and not here.
Also, it may useful to keep things in perspective: An average human life lasts ~25,000 days. How many of those days are you ready to expend to fight over ṛchā versus ṛc on an English language online non-scholarly resource where (1) 99.9% of the readers won't care for the difference (and the ones who care won't be looking at this introductory article for new knowledge) and (2) the information is likely to be edited out at any moment anyway ? You need to consider if this issue is the moste useful expenditure of your time. Regards. Abecedare 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
an excellent question, which I should be asking myself much more often -- but then I hear there are people spending time sitting in front of a television :) regards, dab (𒁳) 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I composed in Ms-Word and pasted in Wiki, but accidentally it got pasted in your talk page because two versions of Wiki were open. In DAB's talk page I even complained that my talk pasted in Talk:Rgveda vanished. I am sorry for pasting it here unknowingly. -Vinay Jha 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Damadian article

When you removed things the second time, you still removed a lot of text that was in the article before smartwords started to rewrite it in a POV fashion. Was this your intent? Please look way back in the history for how the article looked last week. Mossig 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that I unintentionally did so, especially as I was basing my edits on the August 14th version. My concern is mainly that many of the paragraphs were unsourced and some of the language was obviously hagiographis rather than encyclopedic. Would you mind taking a look at the current version and adding back whatever sourced (or sourcable) content I may have removed ? Abecedare 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I will do it in a day or two. Mossig 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND

your comments-
As WP:LEAD specifies the lead is not exempt from the verifiability requirement. So if it presents some facts (that are disputable) and not explicitly repeated later in the article (eg the 7000 km coastline), they need to be cited. There is no consistency requirement to cite everything or nothing in the lead. That said, I agree with you that one or two citations from the lead can perhaps be moved to later sections.

reply - can't you see (don't take it wrong way please its not my brutality, actually my way of expressing is sick) that i have cited the source. also cia.gov is a very very reliable source. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sushant, I think you misread me. I was not complaining that the fact that India has a 7,000km long coastline is unreferenced. I was merely using it as an example for something in the lead that is not repeated in the article and therefore is appropriately referenced in the lead itself. Does that make more sense ? Abecedare 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also you guys should look towards Governor-General of India rather than India. This is article is hopeless in comparison to india. now please don't say that it was nominated 3 years from now. It is simply hopeless (as compared to other FAs) thanks, Sushant gupta 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at that article yet but may do so later today. Don't know if I'll be able to spend much time editing it though as my on/off-wikipedia plate is pretty full. Cheers.
PS: I hope you don't mind my removing the "big bold" tag from your message, since I find it too distracting. Cheers. Abecedare 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
no, i didn't mind that you removed "big bold" tag. have a nice day. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

Hi Abecedare, i created this page on 4th August 2007 and now i am willing to nom. it for FAC. if you don't mind can you please review the whole article and tell me what all can i improve in the article. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma

In introductory para, I found a lopsided meaning of Dharma as "law", which I improved as divine (religious) law, because Dharma is distinct from secular law. But Buddhipriya reverted it on 19 July because I had not sourced it (I was hurrying for an international monsoon conference). Yesterday, I linked Dharma in the opening line so that readers might not be misled by the lopsed definition of Dharma given in the end of this para, but GaurangaUK today reverted it too. GaurangaUK had reverted my well sourced edits to Indian Astronomy, which I had carried on after SteveMcCluskey asked me to do so (cf. Talk there). I reverted GaurangaUK's action in Indian astronomy and requested him to discuss because all of my statements were well sourced. I had rectified some serious factual errors there too (Varah Mihir and Brahmagupta were mentioned as followers of Aryabhatta-I, which I corrected). GaurangaUK refused to discuss, saying he had no interest in the topic. It clearly means he is viewing me as a troll or a vandal, perhaps misled from DAB's wrong charges on me in Surya Siddhanta. The article Dharma gives a balanced definition of it, but why Hinduism cannot give a balanced definition is beyond my comprehension. Even linking to another Wiki article cannot be tolerated ! There are three alternatives :(1) link Dharma, it will save words because you want to trim Hinduism, (2) improve the definition by replacing law with something like religious law (or cite MW : "law, religion, etc"), or (3) remove this definition in introduction (it will save bytes, but I do not recommend it). In any case, a balanced definition is needed, or at least a link. [On Rgvedic dating, I am postponing any discussion there because DAB is not in a proper mood at present. I will try it later, if possible. I had a great difficulty in persuading him to stop a discussion on Vedic morphology and semantics which was digressing away from needs of Wiki and was being personalised. I am not complaining against anyone, just informing. Regards.] -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... Vinay, you will really have to learn to address the issues and not personalize the discussion. If respected and experienced editors (and in my experience exemplars of civility), such as GourangUK and Buddhipriya, revert your edits, simply ask them politely on the article talk page for an explanation instead of ascribing bad faith and motives of vendetta.
As for the reason the link you added was removed: See this wikipedia guideline, which clearly is well-known to GourangUK; also you may have not noticed but the word law in the sentence already links to the dharma article, which provides the reader with the correct contextual meaning. Abecedare 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya has collaborated with me in a marvellous way (after the aforementioned reverting) in svadhyaya, and I or Buddhipriya do not entertain any grievance. Even here I have said that Buddhipriya reverted because my edit was unsourced (and therefore Buddhipriya's action was legitimate). I failed to engage GaurangaUK into a dialogue, but I do not suspect bad faith or vendetta, because GaurangaUK does not know me. I only suspected of my image as a vandal or a troll because people do not know a newcomer. As far as link of "law" to Dharma, you may be satisfied, but all readers do not bother about links or citations and simply read the main articles. Hence Dharma as 'law' will certainly mislead many readers, only the more serious ones will find the link or sources. As for personalisation of discussion, see last talk on Talk:Rgveda for my behaviour. Regards. -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sadly I was part expecting this kind of response to such a minimal edit, but was hoping (in vain it seems) that it would not be a repeat pattern, as had happened here. In that instance I had not been involved in the article, and am hardly very knowledgeable on the subject so I just backed off rather than waste time in an edit war or trying to explain the obvious. In this occasion, Vinay, I think you have to take the comments being made by other editors as constructive criticism and try to change your approach. I have no personal axe to grind, it's just a matter of functionality. Sincere regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Since my name was mentioned, I will take the liberty of commenting. There is a long and rather tiresome history regarding the use of the phrase "Sanatana Dharma" within the Hinduism article. The fact that the term dharma is nearly untranslatable has been discussed in some detail, and somewhere in the talk archives those conversations are gathering electronic dust. Since the Hinduism article is a fairly mature one, with relatively high editor participation, in my experience the best approach to editing it is to suggest in advance what you plan to do on the talk page, unless it is a trivial matter. I have made several such suggestions on the talk page and generally have found that while it may take some time for the matter to be worked out, when that approach is used there is much more chance that the edit will survive more than a few minutes on the main article surface. We have few active edtiors on the Hinduism project. If we are to be successful as a team, we must learn to think like a team, and communicate as actively as we can to try to build WP:CON over time. I am pleased that we have been able to collaborate on svadhyaya, and that success has been due to effective use of the talk page. I claim no expertise on any subject. I value the opportunity to learn more about these subjects through dialog with those who can teach me things and draw my attention to good books. I am grateful to all three editors, Abecedare, GourangaUK, and Vinay Jha, who each have made me aware of important sources that without their help I would still remain ignorant of. Bees produce more honey by working together rather than by fighting each other. Buddhipriya 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


My pleasant answer on Talk:Hinduism. - Vinay Jha 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bombay

Did you not look at the source information before you reverted my edit? A population of 18 million is obviously ridiculous and contradicts the Gazetteer as well as the Wikipedia itself. BethelRunner 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

... oops, I just posted a comment on your talk page. Abecedare 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the metropolitan area/city distinction has obviously led to some confusion. Thanks for the welcome. BethelRunner 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Vishnu sahasranama

There is a debate regarding what constitutes as spam. Your input would be appreciated. GizzaDiscuss © 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

I am in conflict on many articles with User:Lara bran, who is something of an edit warrior. She is now accusing me of cultural bias: [3]. Can you take a look at her recent edits and help me understand how to approach this user? Her prior edits are mostly on articles related to sexual behavior, but she also is interested in Template:Raja Yoga and Kama Sutra, etc. Buddhipriya 06:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem

Brahman-Hill, Maithil Brāhamana, and Utkala Brahmin do not get proper place in respective alphabetic classes when the category Brahmins is opened. Utkala Brahmin was recently created by me, but Brahman-Hill is an old articles . I do not know the reason why it is so. -Vinay_Jha 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be ok now. See Category:Brahmins. Abecedare 18:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I think Maithil Brāhamana should be merged with Maithil and moved to Maithil Brahmin to be consistent with all other pages in Category:Brahmins. Ar you ok with such a move ? Abecedare 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

India RfC

Hi, thanks for the message you left in my talk page re:consolidating commentsRueben lys 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bengali Brahmins : Redirection needed

Kulin Brahmins is a redundant stub which may be redirected to Bengali Brahmins which describes Kulin Brahmins adequately. I am wikifying and expanding Bengali Brahmins . -Vinay_Jha 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You should add the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to the two pages explaining your resons on the talk pages of the article(s), wait a couple of days, and if no one objects redirect from Kulin Brahmins to Bengali Brahmins after moving any relevant content from the former to the latter. If you have any problem with these steps, feel free to contact me or any other experienced editor for help.
'Aside:' Looking at Bengali Brahmins I see that it is largely
  1. unreferenced
    • Example:
    • "Bengali Brahmins are generally well-educated".
    • "But all Bengali brahmins are descendants of Panch-Gauda."
    • Who or what survey proves this ?
  2. and contains plenty of original research
    • Example:
    • "Hence, at the time of Kalhana, Bengali brahmins had not emerged as a distinct branch of Panch-Gauda"
    • "Such evidences suggest Puṇḍra or Vārendra and regions west of Bhagirathi to be seats of brahmins from ancient times."
    • "It is unlikely that the brahmins from Kānyakubja may have been invited to Mithila for performing a yajña, because Mithila was a strong base of brahmins and it did not need to import brahmins."
    • Who draws these conclusion ?
It would be good if while cleaning up the article you can add secondary sources to support the sourcable statements in the article and delete all the unreferenced and unacceptable original research. Abecedare 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I had mentioned above that I am wikifying and expanding Bengali Brahmins. See its history : this article was completely unsourced before I touched it and the content was shabby too. This article needs further improvement. I also want responses from other editors, because I have doubts about some of the information I possess (which I did not cite).
To date I have created / wikified four articles on brahmins : Shakadvipi, Utkala Brahmin, Maithil Brahmin, Bengali Brahmins.
All the statements mentioned by you above are sourced to secondary sources mentioned in these four articles, but I need some time to present these statements in a better way. -Vinay Jha Talk 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing material on Bengali Brahmins won't be easy, so it's good that Vinay is making the effort. There's a set of web pages by Tanmoy Bhattacharya expanding on his own genealogical investigations with some interesting sources, such as the Brhamavaivarta Purana and historical researches (in Bengali) by Nihar Ranjan Ray and others. Unfortunately, H-K notation (with a vengeance!) render the pages only borderline readable. rudra 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
you, sir, are an excellent editor. Your maxim of "stop worrying and love the trolls" cracked me up, and shows deep understanding of Wikipedia's secret of success :) dab (𒁳) 08:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the India RfC

Hi, I remember you contributed to the India RfC, so I am just asking you're opinion (I think, although I might wrong, that you're an admin).

With regards to the last few additions I made to my comments explaining why I insisted that the contents of the History section be modified, Fowler came back with this: {{User:Rueben lys: I of course can't force you to use the collapsible box format for your notes below, but I should warn you that such long rambling notes are not read by anyone (I certainly haven't read them, and I'm the disputant in this RfC), and, in addition, they have the effect of discouraging others from commenting, when they notice that your comments have taken up three times more space than everyone else's put together. You have to learn to make your point in your statement, not drag it out in dribbles in comment after comment.}}

Would appreciate your comments.Rueben lys 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey,

Thanks for the harassment info...really helped. Also, thanks for reverting the hyderabad images that kept becoming smaller...i tried to explain to him on his talk page and the hyderabad talk page but he didnt "understand"...thanks. Nikkul 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is best to not to "argue" about these issues but simply specify the relevant policy (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images) which says that image sizes should not be specified at all unless there is a very good reason to do so. I'll be cleaning up the article some more in the next few minutes. Cheers. Abecedare 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you know what you are doing, your latest edit to that pathetic article about the city of the same nature was a no brainer. I think you stick together--Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Abecedare 00:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template:Aesthetics. Also says that image sizes should not be specified at all unless there is a very good reason to do so and there was a very good reason to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs) 01:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
And that reason is ? I think it would be better to discuss these points on Talk:Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Abecedare 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: I have no idea why you are "citing" a template as opposed to a policy, guideline or manual of style. :-) Abecedare 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Left my thoughts on my userpage--oo000--[[{{{A.J.W.C.}}}--000oo]] 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific ? Also, your user page does not render properly in Firefox. If you have the time, you may want to look at it. Cheers. Abecedare 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine from my end, thats also one of the reasons why I stopped using firefox--oo000--[[{{{A.J.W.C.}}}--000oo]] 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is garbled in Safari browser too, so I guess you are using some Microsoft specific, non-standard code. Well, since it's your user-page, you are free to do so, but if you wish to discuss issues regarding image sizes on the Hyderabad page, I would prefer if you posted your views at Talk:Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh where they are readable by everybody. Cheers. Abecedare 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If I new how to fix the prob I would, cheers--AJWC123 07:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, reading through raw HTML/CSS code to debug it can be very painful. A suggestion would be to progressive delete (or rather comment out) snippets of the code to see when it becomes legible in Firefox; that will at least isolate the errant bit which can then hopefully be corrected. Till then you will be losing the non-IE, non-Windows fraction of your readership. :-) Abecedare 07:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to have a look now to see if it renders properly in Firefox, thanks--AJWC123 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It is much better. Only the fourth set of userboxes (the one with Austrialia, NSW and Sydney) overlaps with the right end of the collapsible boxes, and thus covers up the Hide/Show buttons. So if somehow you can move the collapsible boxes further down the page should be legible in both Firefox and IE. Nice work! Abecedare 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I realized that the amount of overlap depends on the width I set for my Firefox window (although in IE the boxes move down dynamically) - so simply moving the collapsible boxes further down may solve the problem for some Firefox users, but not for all :( Abecedare 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see the edit I made to your userpage which solves the legibility problem on Firefox (irrespective of the window width).
Also, you should move {{Adamjwc}} to userspace, since it is currently misplaced in wikipedia mainspace. AFAIK you simply need to create a a page User:Adam.J.W.C./Userboxes, copy all the code from Template:Adamjwc to that page, and then replace {{Template:Adamjwc}} by {{User:Adam.J.W.C./Userboxes}} on your userpage. Cheers. Abecedare 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks or that, looks better now. I will look into fixing the userbox asap.--AJWC123 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review: Taj Mahal

An article you have contributed to, Taj Mahal has been nominated for Good Article review. Upon recent review of the article, I found some issues within the article that might keep the article from GA status. So, I have asked for a Good Article review. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there. Drewcifer 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re:august 2007

Had that revert been user:ipsos, i would certainly have broken 3rr. But for during time of discussion, we need an intermediate version. But why i changed in article itself has a reason, if not included there no one will come to talk, see history of talk page, only if i change in main article everyone comes to talk. otherwise no one cares, you know im alone other side. Lara_bran 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lara, no you are not alone on your side. If you think your arguments are strong enough you can always invite a "third opinion" or start a RFC. As I have stated on the talk page, I agree that the contents section should be expanded, although I don't think adding a "table of contents" is the way to go.
By simply edit-warring on the page, you in fact weaken your case since it then becomes an issue of a "problematic editor" rather than a content disagreement. This is my sincere view and I am offering it without prejudice towards the content you wish to add. Regards. Abecedare 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am really irritated by 2 users who revert without courtesy to leave a line in talk page for revert. I have asked for third opinion, but user:buddhipriya removed that which was to be removed by third party. Of course there is rfc, i may have to go. Also i expect you to leave a comment on your ref you added to second sentence, in different section of same page, i feel that is very obvious, clear WP:SYN. Lara_bran 14:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, im sorry, that is not you who added that sentence. I noticed now, that is different user. Lara_bran 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested for RFC. You may also give comment. Please review once if RFC format is proper, though i followed all intructions. Lara_bran 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reformatted it as per what I think the desired format is. Abecedare 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for kind help. Lara_bran 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain

[4] BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did not get you, should articles not be linked?? How does that lead to a POV?BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Read my edit summary here or my comment on Talk:Adam's Bridge. Cheers. Abecedare 07:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a big history on Rama's Setu. The article needs a special attention. BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You are edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_Abecedare
Thanks Abecedare. Indeed it is a POV fork, and I'll try get his reasons. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One moment, Abecedare. I'm supposing our concensus is to cut the discussion on Ancient Rama's Setu? --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hirohisat, I'll be glad continue the discussion if there are any reliable sources which attest to the term "Ancient Rama's Setu" and use it in a sense different from the one discussed currently in Adam's Bridge. Also it would be best if we consolidate any future discussion in one place (say Talk:Adam's Bridge) since it is very difficult to keep track of and repeat the same arguments at the article talk page, BR's and my user talk pages, and ANI. Regards. Abecedare 08:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone will notice me about it. Yes, I did take down the speedy template just a moment ago. Thanks for your notice. --Hirohisat Kiwi 04:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Hinduism

This article is one of the worst relative to its importance. It is a hybrid of Hindu history and Hinduism in general. There was previously a mythology section! This version of Hinduism may provide a foundation since it has a reasonable number of sources and is written coherently. I am keen to hear what your thoughts are. GizzaDiscuss © 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

India RfC, controversial tag

Hi Abecedare , I noticed from the India talk page that you're opinion is that the controversial tag be removed because this is unneccessary. I have reinstated the tag, without offence, for reasons I have outlined in the talk page. I do not wish to appear an Oxymoron, byt the Indian independence movement is a slightly controversial topic, with different people and organisations holding the opinion that contributions of those outside the congress have largely been ignored. Also, the current version is highly favourable of the Congress only view point, as well as reduces an enormous movement into five lines. You will also see that past attempts by editors to improve this section in an NPOV and reliable way has been opposed strongly, I believe for the same reasons I have cited above. As such, I'd like the tag to stay because this will invite a discussion and resolve the RfC. Hope you see my point. With regards.Rueben lys 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncivility

I asked user:Anwar_saadat(the troll on Hinduism page) this and this is what response I get? KnowledgeHegemony 07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I contyact an admin for this?KnowledgeHegemony 07:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Anwar's response was of course silly and borderline trolling, but you may be better of contacting an admin to see if there is anything actionable. User:Aksi_great may be a good choice since he is familiar with hkelkar and may be familiar with Anwar too.
By the way, there are some experienced users on wikipedia who think that any edit by a banned user can and should be reverted, irrespective of whether it is good or bad. The thinking being, that this will send a signal to the banned editor that they are simply not welcome on wikipedia. I recall a long discussion on WP:ANI a month or so back regarding this, but am too lazy to pull up a link. That said, claiming "sock of banned user" is not a free pass for making arbitrary reverts, and at a minimum one needs to clarify which user is being refrred to and, if asked, present some evidence that the edit is indeed being made by the claimed editor. Hope that helps. Cheers. Abecedare 07:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mumbai

Hi saw ur msg at Mumbai talk page. Wikipedia manual of style does not explain bolding of a former name. Old names have not been bolded in Chennai, Kolkata or Bangalore. Dont u think lead shud be Mumbai is capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra just like other Indian state-capital articles ? (Stateofart 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Will reply of Mumbai talk page Abecedare 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You beat me to issuing that 4im warning there. (My browser froze for a few seconds. I think I better reboot my computer) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to reverting the Hinduism vandalism. So it's just quid pro quo of a sort. :-) Abecedare 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahābhāṣya

Can you please take a look at Mahābhāṣya, where I just reverted massive unsourced changes by Vinay? I am not sure if that was the right course of action, as perhaps some of what he added is an improvement. But the continuing problems with WP:V leave me unsure what to do in these cases. If you feel that on balance it would be better to leave his changes to the stub, please revert my reversion. But something must be done to address the lack of sourcing. Buddhipriya 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay's additions don't look too bad but they do need inline citations. I noticed that in your article talk page message you have clarified that the main issue is with the formatting of the refs. and not with the content per se (although it is impossible to judge the latter without the former :-) ) I think Vinay has been on wikipedia long enough and this specific issue has been pointed out to him multiple times, so I don't think WP:BITE applies anymore. Hopefully he too will recognize that and the recent (and welcome!) improvement in his editing will continue. Cheers. Abecedare 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of it reads like WP:OR, particularly the parts related to modern study practices, and I wish I could tell who said it to determine which source may be worth ordering up on interlibrary loan. Thanks for giving an independent assessment. Buddhipriya 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I alluded parenthetically above, without inline cites it is impossible to tell whether the opinions are those of the (published) author, or of a wikipedia editor. Once inline citations have been added it should be easy to tell the difference and weed out any residual OR. Abecedare 08:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out I should delete my earlier comment on the Afd for sociolinguistics research in India. It is the first time I have participated in this process so am just learning the proper procedures. Cheers, John Hill 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sociolinguistics research in India

Thanks for your comments on my talk page (and for reworking the lead in the article - that's a great improvement). I haven't participated much in the really social collaborative aspect of Wikipedia up to now so your suggestion about contacting earlier voters was much appreciated - I've now done so.

Re changing the title, I'm reminded of George Washington's axe :-) but otherwise no strong feelings. A shorter title is probably better on general principles. Another alternative might be "Indian sociolinguistics" but that implies a distinct methodology as opposed to American/Western sociolinguistics, and what I wrote doesn't really support that; so your suggestion is probably better. --Zeborah 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi there; to answer your question on the WP:AIV page; reversion of obvious vandalism is not blockable under 3RR rules, and can be done without limit. One warning; it is important to distinguish between a vandal and an edit warrior! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So is this clear vandalism:
  • On the one hand the IP is repeatedly changes the statistics for which not one, but two reliable sources have been provided.
  • On the other hand, his edit summary indicates that he is doing so out of ignorance rather than malice.
Abecedare 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir, please see some weird message pasted by someone in my talk page. Kerala govt logo is used in wikipedia but someone's objecting abt Maharashtra govt logos. What to do?? (Stateofart 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Hello, please see MH websites TOS. (Stateofart 04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the star!

Thank you for the barnstar and the congratulations! Galena11 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha &c

If MW cited Panchtantra for reference to Ganesha, how it can be my WP:OR? Moreover, I did not present something new about dating of Panchtantra, I only borrowed the source of its dating from the already existing Wiki article Panchtantra in which I never made any contribution. See Brahmin where similar (and wrong) charges were levelled against me, although it was Buddhipriya and not me who was adding WP:OR there (not deliberately). There, DAB had a discussion with me once, but he acqiesced. But then Buddhipriya started reverting my contributions, adding wrong statements which I had to remove.

In Mahabhashya, I received similar charges, although it was a stub and all editors had a right to contribute unsourced matter to that stub, excepting me ! Had Buddhipriya tried to improve that article instead of targeting me for levelling charges, I would have provided a lot of well sourced material. I myself removed those sentences which Buddhipriya did not like (although I had sources, and I informed Buddhipriya of it, but Buddhipriya did not ask me to provide those sources and levelled charges on me again in Ganesha). I had asked Buddhipriya (much earlier) that I will provide sources for all those contributions from me for which Buddhipriya will make explicit demand, if wholesale reverting without discussing is not done. But Buddhipriya neglected this request. Mahabhashya will hardly see knowledgeable editors, because Buddhipriya will chase them away. How many editirs have read Mahabhashya? I am not going to touch this stub again. Buddhipriya collaborated in svadhyaya, but why Buddhipriya's attitute changed later is beyond my comprehension.

Half my time has been wasted in defending myself against charges of [[WP:OR}}, and I have decided to try once or twice, and then give up such articles for good. Panchtantra is not a modern work . Neither MW is unreliable . I have no interest in fighting with those who are not ready to accept plain and well sourced truths. What you call synthesis from quotes was a consequence of Buddhipriya's attempt to prevent me from citing MW at all about Panchtantra. It makes no difference to me whether Hindus invented Ganesha in 200 BCE or in 400 AD, or whether Rgveda was composed in 1973036542 BCE or in 1346 AD. I am not an idolator. Thanks for burying the evidence of Panchtantra . -VJha 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, If so many editors on so many articles have complained that your edits violate wikipedia's policies on original research perhaps you should consider that it is perhaps something that you are doing that is incorrect, rather than all these experienced editors misunderstanding wikipedia policy or having a inexplicable grudge against you. I urge you to read WP:OR and WP:V again and understand these core wikipedia policies, or to consider getting a mentor on wikipedia. As for the Ganesha article specifically, about which I complained, I would prefer discussing the issue on the article talk page. Regards. Abecedare 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I stated all that I had to say on that talk page, but it failed to convince you. I am not interested in discussing it more. "so many editors on so many articles" include only Buddipriya (and unfortunately you too) at present. I do not want to communicate with persons who call me by my first name, that is why I even changed my signature. -VJha 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_4&oldid=1046016462"