User talk:Rudrasharman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion to resolve ongoing conflict

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [1], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues Sbhushan 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me with dating of TS and Shukla (Yajur Veda)

I am trying to find details about which one is older. It is but obvious that TS is but I need citations for the same. BalanceRestored 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

science students

[2] -- I know, it's depressing. Nice to see you around though. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

dickovery of a new upanishad

Really happy to see you back. Please see. Upasthadharma 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Vedas

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=152587388&oldid=152462282

Did not get you sir!!! BalanceRestored 05:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

sheesh, they now try to decide on the content of the Vedas by petition? --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the petition! It's good to have you back, Rudra. Buddhipriya 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You did not seem to notice the source that the petition mentioned. I thought you all read the entire article. I will be careful. It was my mistake not to have narrated things properly thanks for correcting things. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean this by one B.D. Ukhul? Where exactly in that unreadable screed are these "quotes"? rudra 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramayana

I've added details from Monier Williams at Ramayana at the right place now. You can kindly comment, if you think there are any discrepancies still left, kindly comment. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic religion

Excellent Edit Rudra !!!... You have summuarised the actual ground reality as to Dharmic religion in your last edit to Dharmic religion. --Anish Shah 04:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the political motivation, of course. Mentioning that would have precipitated an edit-war for sure. See the AFD for more. rudra 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

so it was deleted. I really see no reason for that, since the content was valid, just the title questionable, and a simple {{merge}} would have sufficed. What now? should it be a disambiguation page, or just a redirect to Indian religions? dab (𒁳) 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Literally, it should be a redirect, but a dab might be better in terms of (legitimate) intent. The noteworthy aspect of the term, as a neologism, is the polemical usage, of course, but that's still too radioactive, I think. rudra 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

New NCERT books

Hi there, For your information Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

indus valley civilisation

You have deleted the sentence i added to the above article. you have cited a reason why you have deleted. i dont agree with the reason you have given. I would like to discuss about it in the discussion area of the same article titled "historical context". If you dont respond to this discussion, i would have to contact an administrator and undo your deletion. vcpk (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your disagreement is irrelevant. Your best course is to quote a passage from the book justifying your use of the word "confirm" in your edit. Yes, we know that Parpola has been one of the most meticulous advocates of the Dravidian Hypothesis regarding the IVC, but he is too careful a scholar for this bald summary of his work. The case is far from proven, much less closed, as your choice of the word "confirm" would imply by ordinary understandings of English. Are you sure you have read enough in this field? rudra (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What to do.....?

Wiki has been heavily infiltrated by islamists. On the Wikipedia article for Zakir Naik, I added the following lines (shown in italics below ).

He is even critized by Khushwant Singh ( who is known for his pro-islamic point of view - he supported the ban on Salman Ruhdie's book). Mr. Singh wonders "...if this was the best way of bridging the gulf of misunderstanding between the world’s two major religions." while observing that Naik rubbishes the other religions' scriptures as he extols islam.

Some Indian writers have questioned his damaging effect upon the secular fiber of their country, and even compared him to the muslims politions who led to the partition of India. His mischievous comments like "...all Muslims should terrorists.." etc. has been a cause of worry among many.

As you can see they are valid by all means and thus deserve to be there on Wiki. Besides there were "critisms" by a couple of others already there, but they carry no weight as criricisms should i.e. they are deliberately inserted there for their superficiality. But hardly two or three minutes had passed that I found them deleted ! I put them back and also told the rival Wikiuser that why they should be there, but no use. I found them deleted again in a matter of minutes. Such zealous is the Wiki-watch of Zakir Naik's fanatic fans ! Neutrality, which is essential to Wikipedia, requires justifiable critism, especially controversial figures like Naik. But these half-mad friends of Allah want even Wiki to be a promotional campaign for their champion.

They also removed the only criticism link in "External Links" which was to the islam-watch.org article on Zakir Naik. They call this website "extremist" ! Only praise for Zakir Naik is what they can tolerate. I have, stubbornly, put the lines back in Wiki article but they won't last, of course.

I think we should put these on Wikiislam, where they cannot carry their jehadic vandalism.

Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An edit war is not constructive. At this point, though, it looks as if your material has been mostly integrated into the section. The problem with Zakir Naik's quotable quotes "All Muslims should be terrorists" etc, is that a criticism pointing them out needs to be sourced. Weasel words like "Some Indian writers" won't do. And then, again, one needs to watch out for WP:UNDUE (and WP:BLP). Criticism sections like this expand and contract all the time; eventually a good set of criticisms will emerge. rudra (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Hi! Thought I'd point you to Hindu milk miracle. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew about this, though (in case you were taking the cue from my edit summary). FAs lead to feeding frenzies like this, so I thought it best to cut discussion short. rudra (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is OK. I have realized that it doesn't really matter. I put it below on a "See Also" section, but if you decide that it should go from there too, I am fine with it going from there too. Good night. David G Brault (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Brahmin

I think this article needs to be reverted to your edit of 06:20, 1 January 2008. The section on Shakaldvipi (Sakaldipi) is dealt with in a separate article. Suryadhwajs also needs a separate article. I am suggesting this to you because I have been abstaining from editing Wiki for four months due to DAB's personal attacks and insensitive reverts without discussion, esp in articles which he was not seriously interested in but merely wanted to harass me, as in Indian astronomy. -VJha (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vinay never forgave me for showing off his ignorance in Sanskrit. I have held his hand and pampered his ego as with a toddler as he slowly started to do useful edits. But I remain his nemesis, because he knows I have seen him without his pants on :) [3] dab (𒁳) 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

VJha, I agree that material should be moved/merged into Shakadvipi, leaving only a brief summary in Brahmin. If you think Suryadhwajs merit a separate article, by all means create it, though at the present level of sourcing, it may be better to combine them with the Shakaldvipis into a Maga Brahmin article. rudra (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To Rudra : Look at [[4]] for my answer. For DAB : I stopped using pants when I grew up, now I use dhotis hence, I have no use of DAB's compliments. Even after quitting, DAB has not stopped abusing me. I am incapable of answering in kind. If someone thinks I stopped editing due to DAB's abuses, it is not true. Presently I have loftier tasks at hand than devoting my time over articles which novices can edit (Indian astronomy : can any Wiki editor find me a person who is capable of elucidating the equations of true planets according to any ancient Indian system as shown in ancient tables of Makaranda or Graha-laghava ? I do not want to inject original research into Wiki, but it is unacceptable that a particular commentator should be accepted as the last word on Surya Siddhanta, there are many other commentaries in many languages). DAB's abuses do not hurt me, it is the reluctance of a group of Wiki editors to pay serious attention to these article and yet insist upon their views without any proper discussion which hurts Wiki. I think there are some editors who have some interest in Indian astronomy, but they do not want to discuss which commentary is correct and insist upon faulty commentaries due to unexplained considerations. I repeated time and again that some spurious commentators are being cited in Surya Siddhanta but no one listened to me because no editor has any real interest in such articles. Johnson's Exegesis is a spurious work which deliberately gives a distorted explanation, yet DAB kept it in Surya Siddhanta. I am vice-chairman and secretary of many sanskrit colleges and other reputed institutions( on account of my work in Indology, mainly ancient Indian astronomy, which have not been published in English). I do not need DAB's certificates. I will try to return as an editor when I am free. Thanks for Rudra's balanced views on many related topics. VJha (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dbachmann RfAr case

Semi-protection is merely a particular level of protection; both use the administrative protection tool underneath. Kirill 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

this is true for the purposes of software development. it is perfectly untrue for the purposes of the effect and intended application of the feature. Semi-protection by design does not affect any established user's ability to edit. It is thus impossible to abuse semi-protection in a dispute with a registered user. For this reason, WP:PROT treats protection and semi-protection as two separate issues. enough said. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

Thank you for your helpful edits on the Vaishnavism article. I'll gladly collaborate with anyone who is willing to act in a reasonable manner. If you have anything more to add it would be great. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of expanding the History section. There's some useful material in Gavin Flood's Hinduism, for instance. The problem is writing about a complex process succinctly (not to mention latter-day Vaishnavas possibly taking exception to the historical antecedents as they have been reconstructed by "infidel" scholars!) rudra (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Resurrected warrior

Please keep an an eye on Special:Contributions/Kkm5848 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.253.157 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tracking the shenanigans of the blog-fed science student continuum would be a full time job, even if WP:STALK didn't apply. Until Wikipedia develops an effective defence to their antics, we are obliged to treat everything they do on a case-by-case basis. rudra (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

rigveda

1. The sentence in question doesnt exactly follow from the refs(the snippets) you've provided.
2. The Avesta article unreferenced as it well may be, doesnt mention "Andronovo" - not in the lead, not any where else.
3. You didnt address the second part of my edit summary - that the 'nugget' seems strangely out of place in the lead. Skimming through the article, it seems to me that the "Recons and dating" section would be a much better place for it. Or perhaps even a seperate approprialtely titled and focused section.
1b. 'From an angle', the sentence almost seems to be suggesting that the Veda owes much to the Avesta(or perhaps the other way round) or that it is but a translation(if you will) of the Avesta. Infact, I am not even sure what the sentence is trying to suggest or what to make of it. Its appearance out of the blue (literally jumps at you) in the lead and the lack of any substantiation elsewhere in the article leaves the reader even more perplexed... especially in the light of #2. That Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian languages share linguistic and cultural affinities is just fine, but what perplexes one is that the article(in just those two lines) seems to be bending over backwards to try and accomodate this fact.
4. Perplexing as the sentences are, both in their placement and wording, it ceases being 'utterly and completely uncontroversial', stops a reader in his tracks and invites a {cn}}.
5. I've said this elsewhere before and it may well be just me, but I think this article (and a 'continuum' of related articles) descends quickly into pretentious and incoherent mumbo-jumbo enough to put off even an interested reader like me. Considering the amount of time you and dab and others spend on these articles, I'm sure they deserve better.
5. Going forward, I'd prefer discussions about article content on article talk pages. Its easy to lose thread of things on multiple editor talk pages. Thanks for your time. Sarvagnya 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian languages share linguistic and cultural affinities is just fine, ...

To juxtapose the Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian thus, our Mr. knowall seems to imbued with some peculiar wisdom on Indic. Why doesn't he go and modify articles on both to reflect his wisdom? Or am I just nitpicking or only a banned user (Kuntan)? 59.91.253.76 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are nitpicking. Sarvagnya has a point: something in the lead not being expanded in the body. The sentence is actually a bold edit of a longer passage from a version long ago, when the distribution of material was different. The article needs to be refactored, but not only is this a big job but also our resident continuum isn't likely to stand for it. rudra (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to develop articles on Indian prehistory reasonably and with common sense. There is always a swarm of puerile patriots making up for lack of knowledge with aggression and smoke-screens of non sequiturs. I don't know why this affects Indian history in particular, while most other countries' histories can just be treated as a matter of course, based on academic consensus. It must have something to do with the Indian education system, I suppose. But then the worst disruption appears to come from Indian expatriates in the US, so perhaps this is the US education system paired with the sense of alienation experienced by all emigrants. This is sad, especially because these "patriots" harm the image of their own country, but we have the policies to deal with it. dab (𒁳) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of these editors have a background in engineering and not in the humanities/social sciences, and thus don't have the tools to correctly evaluate sources. The reason that it seems like a high proportion when it comes to Indian history is indeed because the Indian educational system - and, indeed, Indian middle-class culture - strongly deprecates any sort of focus on the humanities, so most of these chaps are self-taught, or receive instruction on this off the internet or from religious sources. Relata refero (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kalidasa

Thanks! I will give it my best shot over the next few days.

Hari (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarasvati River assessment

The river is praised in the Vedas, identified with Sarasvati and is believed to form one of the holiest Sangams with Ganga and Yamuna at the Triveni Sangam, Allahabad. You are welcome to reassess if you disagree with my assessment, without any further discussion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Full thread here rudra (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you take a look at this? Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sindhi Civilization

You left me a message the subject of this message, but you didn't sign it. I am extremely amazed to know that I have ever contributed to the article on this subject. I went to the link, which you think I had copied it from, but I realized that I have never visited that link either. However, I would like to see the deleted page so that I can try to recall if I had ever written, or copied that text. I am afraid, someone else has used my hacked my account and copied the copyrighted material using my account.

Aursani (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Reliable Sources

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to WP:Reliable Sources, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal to reopen Merge discussion

Please could you accompany your merger proposals with solid NEW arguments? As far as has been established so far, Nordic race and Nordic theory don't comply to the criteria for a merger since both articles have a different scope. If you don't agree with the current arguments in favor or against, please make this clear at TALK before throwing around your tags. Thanks. Rokus01 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias in British Raj article

Your participation in the current debate in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. Desione (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

France

OK prime example. A typical "directorial" stub like Albas, Lot. Now see this, the French equivalent and tell me wikipedia wouldn't benefit from 30,000 new articles in english like this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have your work cut out for you, translating 30,000 articles. May it give you great joy. (It would have been a sight easier simply to create a work list -- and perhaps a project -- of "Articles on French villages to translate from French Wikipedia", but WP as a dumping ground is nothing new.) rudra (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bodhgaya Image

Hey,

I was just wondering if anything could be done about User:Adam.J.W.C.. He has put the image on Uncyclopedia under the caption "India's famous super hero "Spiderman" selling his ass for butt sex, 50c a go" [5] Nikkul (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration vote counting

Hi. I saw your discussion with David.Mestel a few weeks back regarding voting procedure in arbitration cases, so I thought you might be interested in the discussion of the "Everyking" appeal now on WP:RfAr. Just FYI and in case you have any thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON work group or subproject

Hello Rudrasharman. I see you have made contributions to recent discussion on ISKCON. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Parisista

Yes, the article referred in the Parisista is indeed a review of Shri Kashikar's paper, which is a part of the Post-Graduate and Research Department Series of BORI, Pune. According to this review (I don't have the original paper with me) Kashikar divided all Sukla Yajurveda Parisistas in five groups based on its topics and I followed the same order without mentioning the groups. You may please correct and update wherever needed.Joy1963 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Allah

Hope that you also join the talk page and explain your views. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In particular please explain why you removed this section [6]. I hope it was not a blind revert. Also the article was extensively copyedited by two users before nomination. Again I hope you were aware of the changes you made. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a "blind revert" to the extent that I didn't scrutinize every last detail in this. If you can make omnibus changes in a single edit, then I can omnibus revert. It's as simple as that. Make separate, smaller, incremental changes, and reverts, where appropriate, will be more discriminating. rudra (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't made many changes in one edit. I reverted Dab. Dab suddenly appeared after my nomination of the article for GA and reverted it to a very previous version of the article. [7]. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that the previous GA nominator reviewer rejected the article, among other things, because it doesn't write enough about the conception of Allah. When I brought it to GA review, another edit confirmed it and requested for more details. Something I provided. Then soon after I nominated it for GA, Dab said there is too much about the conception and prevented this article to become GA. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The GA nominator reviewer was confused. rudra (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. rudra (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at your "minor" edit and see if you agree with all the changes you made. if there are parts that should be recovered (like the above section and grammatical corrections), please do so. Thanks--Be happy!! (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the two reviewers were correct or not can be discussed on the talk page. I removed my nomination of the article for GA because it was going to be failed because of edit-warring. Now, please join the talk page and discuss your changes. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only after I've figured out how many reverts were involved. (I mark reverts minor as a rule, to signify that no new edits are involved) rudra (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be looking forward to that. meanwhile I will not edit the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First pass: my/Dab's version is far superior. Your version is a coatrack to ramble about the "Conception of Allah", making this an article, at a stretch, one on comparative religion. That was never the scope, as was already made clear to you. As for matters of detail, you'll just have to wait. rudra (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, take a look. I've left a comment on the Talk page. rudra (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have asked about clarification of some of your edits on the talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3