User talk:Sisodia

Hello, Sisodia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing! M y s e k u r i t y 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of talk articles

Somehow you are created a bunch new articles when you are intending to participate on talk pages. You created the article Talk:Talk talk:Scindia among others. Bige1977 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thank you for your kind words!--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your support!!

Hi, Sisodia

Thanks for your kind words and support of the article - Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar. It's great when historic events of this nature can be shared with the rest of the world. I'm also sorry to hear about the Rajput article. I don't think it is a religious divide - I put it down to fanatic people generally.

You look after yourself and keep your spirit HIGH – Remain in Chardikala!!! --Hari Singh 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I am WIN and thanks for your support.My opposers are telling that I was banned for 20 hours. But the administator himself/herself says that he/she don't know about this topic.It was done because 3 persons have made gang to oppose me and delete my any writings. They are deleting from talk pages and same is done in main article which is written based on their POV. WIN 07:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Indo-Aryan migration

Talk pages are not for general discussion or debate about whether a given theory is right or wrong, that violates WP:NOR. They are for deciding how the article can better reflect outside scholarly opinion--and since many scholars do support the Indo-Aryan migration theory theory, the editors can't just delete all arguments in favour from the article no matter how much WIN or others desire. If you have anything to contribute, from formal research and from formal publications (too many Wikipedia articles are derived from amateur websites), please add it to the article and source it. Trying to use the Talk page as a chat room and deciding the truth of the issue oneself isn't how things are supposed to work. Haven't you noticed that WIN never edits the article, he just goes on and on on the Talk page? It's for that that he is held in low esteem, not because of his viewpoints on Indian history. CRCulver 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is for. You write "What WIN is arguing is a very popular alternate view of origin of Aryans." Yes, that's the problem. WIN is arguing, he's not adding these viewpoints to the article (where they would be welcome, if well-sourced), he's trying to get everyone the Talk page to agree with him. You then write, "Let the wikipedia readers decide whose position is closer to truth." Wikipedia is not for deciding the truth of controversial theories, that violates the soapbox part of WP:NOT, we are for dispassionately mirroring outside scholarly opinion. Look, just add any critical views you've found about the Indo-Aryan migration theory to the article and source them from formal publications. That way, you get an article that reflects other viewpoints, and WIN (if he were sincere) would stop being a nuisance. It would be a win-win situation. CRCulver 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were serious

Hi. If you were serious about what you said on WIN's talk page (about gathering up people and creating an organization on wikipedia for accurate representation of Indian history and monitoring bigots like Dbachman), then count me in. Also, check out this. Plz contribute.Netaji 08:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Indians

If "patriotic Indians" for you are those who hold a conservative Hindu viewpoint, do you then say that non-Hindus are not patriotic Indians? My biggest objection to the category you are supporting is that you seem to suggest that millions of your compatriots are traitors just because they don't agree with you. CRCulver 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t categorize all the people who are not patriotic as traitors. Some are simply apathetic. That is to say, they just couldn’t care less about any patriotic issue. I am juxtaposing myself against these people. Sisodia 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are patriotic Muslims and Christians, and so forth welcome in your guild? What if they decide that they can support certain notions different from your conservative Hindu viewpoint and still love their country? CRCulver 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question even before you asked it! Please read this line from my original post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Patriotic_Indian_Wikipedian's_Guild .

Also, I want this group to be an inclusive group, where all Indians with all shades of opinions feel at home as long as they have the essential patriotism in them.

Need I say more? And btw, let me cordially invite you to join our guild, in whatever form in crystalizes in

to in coming days. All I am really attempting here is create a forum for all like minded editors where they can discuss stuff of common interest freely. thats all. What is so hair-raising about maintaining a simple list of articles and editors. Think dispassionately and you will realize that this really is a harmless idea.

Sisodia 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you know that won't work. Obviously no one who dislikes their country would join. However, what if a proud Indian wanted to be active, but he agrees with mainstream international scholarship that the Indo-European languages entered India from elsewhere, and feels that fact in no way limits the glory of his nation? Your guild says, no, you have to believe in what we say about the history of India to be a patriot. CRCulver 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linquistics is speculative, Science is fact. Science supports the Ramayan and Mahabharat but mainstream (meaning speculator mumbo-jumbo) history doesn't. Science > Scholarship. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that under Wikipedia policy, WP must represent the mainstream scholarly consensus regardless of whether some disagree with it. To claim here that "science" tells us something that outside scholarship doesn't violates WP:NOR. CRCulver 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your suggestions on the deletion page, but as I say, I'm not offended, but humoured.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not offended, but humoured

As was always intended :-). Only a few have been able to detect the toungue-in-cheek style of that manifesto. I have always had this wicked trait of inciting certain admins, oops editors who behave as if wikipedia rests on their shoulders alone, into committing a faux pas, and then enjoy the fun while they fumble to get out the of trap ;). The language in that category letter is intentionally bit over the top.

Well, I was humoured because I feel that it was obviously a wrong characterisation, although the way you wrote, appeared dead serious. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That of course in no way undermines the relevance of the idea of creating a guild for protecting patriotic Indian viewpoints. Time and again I am surprised to see same recurring theme in India related pages. Some starry eyed idealist posting a few slightly adulatory lines about India in some page, and a host of hardened India bashers will descend upon him like a ton of brick. They will throw all sorts of wikipedia policy acronyms at him, the poor soul will simply be too demoralized to edit any article ever again. This has gotta stop somewhere.

Sisodia 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the complaint the other side has? As a historical linguist, I'm trying to reflect the mainstream of international scholarship, that Sanskrit and many languages of Europe and West Asia can be derived from a common ancestor--my concern is only with the languages themselves, not their speakers--and I'm called a racist and a hater of India. CRCulver 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means reflect the views that you believe in, but please allow alternate views some space too. I saw this same problem with you in Aryan Invasion Theory debate, where you were adamant about not allowing User:WIN ‘s edits stand in article talk page too. This is censorship. Harsh words are spoken when people get frustrated because of their edits getting reverted with haughty remarks like “reverted crank theory”, or “deleted crap”. This is when all such troubles start. Adopt a little democratic mindset and things will smoothen up. Sisodia 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I revert WIN's edits were because 1) they were not related to making the article better, but debating the truth of the theory in violating of WP:NOR 2) they were just repetitions of the same arguments he has posted many times 3) They were often off-topic (e.g. debate over invasion in the migration article) 4) They were making the Talk page immensely long and hard to follow, and when we archived the Talk pages, WIN went crazy and called it censorship. I got an admin's permission to remove off-topic material, and I did so.

I don't mind alternate views in the article. As long as they are well-sourced from formal publications, they are quite useful to Wikipedia. What I object to is using the Talk page like a chat room and ignoring making the article better.

When WIN has declared that his goal is not to make Wikipedia more fair, but to have the entire pro-migration side deleted from Wikipedia, why do you continue to assert he's some kind of victim? He announced his contempt for Wikipedia's policies, what are we supposed to do? CRCulver 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Countering systemic bias in Hindu-related articles

Hi, I'm setting up this project as a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. Will you be a part of this? --^Babub→Talk 11:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you

Hi there, I saw your edits in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann. I was just wondering if more appropriate place for your comments might be in section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann#Outside_view. Since you were not directly involved in the current dispute, but you had a similar dispute earlier, more appropriate place would be Outside view. You can quote all the evidence there. I am still trying to work mediation with Dab, but he is not cooperating. Thanks.Sbhushan 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. My only concern is that my complaints will be overlooked in the outside view section. When I first posted my concerns on the Admin’s notice board, I was told to take them to this RFC. Please just make sure my comments get the attention they deserve. I don’t want to open another RFC against Bachmann. A previous RFC against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) came unstuck because real issues got buried in swathes of texts posted by our own friends. Talk about friendly fire! Anyway, you have my consent to move my edits anywhere you like in your RFC. I will find means to educate Wikipedia community about Bachmann’s behavior later somehow.

Sisodia 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I am also trying to keep the issue focused. I believe they will be stonger in Outside view, as that shows the issue/problem is widespread. I would prefer if you could move the comments.Sbhushan 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my edits from Statement of the dispute section. Do you want me to remove my comments from the other sections like Evidence etc too? Sisodia 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nagabhatta picture

Do you have any image/painting of Nagabhatta Pratihara for the Battle of Rajasthan page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarkar2 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Attention needed

Please have a look here: [1]--Scheibenzahl 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann

Regarding a complaint here: [2] I request two things:

You comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:DBachmann regarding this matter
Configure your preferences with an email address and contact me by clicking here. I have information that will be of use to you.Thanks.Nagsheh 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva pseudoscience

Since you commented on the afd, it has been re-Afd'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience (2nd nomination).Baka man 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khanda sword among Rajputs

Any info/pics of the Khanda?

The Indian Military History page on Khanda only talks about the Sikhs...but its use goes back to a more ancient period.

Please add info about Rajputs, Marathas, etc using the Khanda and any pictures if you can obtain them from Rajasthan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarkar2 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Khanda-sword.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khanda-sword.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]