User talk:Vinay Jha

List of DYKs

On August 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Utkala brahmin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shakadvipi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-VJha ^Talk 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct now?

Vinay Jha, I've blocked the account you don't want and made the user and user talk pages redirect here instead. That's about the most I can offer. We can't actually delete accounts here. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Hinduism, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Precession article

I did read your edit before reverting it. Let me explain. As you admitted on my talk page, the equations are unnecessary detail. The stuff about 'trepidation' needs a source; I've never heard of it. Nutation is already mentioned above and doesn't need to be discussed further in this article. The paragraph about 'Milankovitz' (sic; the standard spelling is Milankovitch cycles) cycles doesn't seems encyclopedic at all. Overall I didn't see anything useful in your contribution. The way, the truth, and the light 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: HINDUISM : Reply from Vinay Jha

I have replied to your comments at my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare 03:53, 05 january

2014 (UTC)

Amarakośa 2.7.45-46

I am trying to add additional citations to some of the material that you have added to Svadhyaya. The version of the Amarakośa that I use is online at: [[1]]. It uses a sequential numbering system. Can you assist me by providing the entry numbers that correspond to 2.7.45-46 in the version I am using? Thanks for your help. Buddhipriya 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we use the talk page for whatever article we are working on as the place to put messages that pertain to that article. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and we can benefit from having other editors help with each article. The concept of WP:OWN has developed to try to formally state the obvious, which is that anything either of us adds is subject to removal or change by anyone else. In such an environment, forming supportive working relationships with valued colleagues is perhaps the only way to survive in the long run. So please participate on the talk page for Svadhyaya for issues that pertain to that article. Some of the basic sourcing issues may take some time to work out, but if we try to collaborate I am sure I will gain much knowledge from you. Buddhipriya 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The online version of Amarkosha you use (http://sanskritdocuments.org/ ) has been compiled by a careless person. In it, fourth subsection of second chapter correctly ends at line 2.4.436 which is end of Vanaushadhi-varga. Next Varga is correctly named Simhādi-varga, and its first line ought to be numbered as 2.5.437, but unfortunately, the varga-number of previous varga was carelessly copied by the compiler and therefore 2.5.437 was numbered as 2.4.437. As a result, all subsequent line numbers have one less in varga-number (the middle number. Therefore, 2.7 is wrongly given as 2.6 in the online version. You will find Svādhyāya in this online version at line number 2.6.908 (which ought to have been numbered 2.7.908), and aghmarshana is mentioned in the next line. I have mentioned a more useful printed version in the reference of Svadhyaya. This printed version has a Hindi commentary by a very good scholar which will help anyone immensely to master Sanskrit language. If you devote a few days on the DESIGN of Amarkosha, you will find that its order is far more scientific for a suffixional language like Sanskrit (like all IE languages) than an artificial alphabetical order used by modern lexicographers. Monier Williams was planning to redesign his great dictionary according to scientific principles of Sanskrit grammar, but unfortunately he died before he could fulfill this great vision. Ask the compilers of sanskritdocuments.org to rectify the line numbering of Amarkosha. The line numbering system employed by the version I quote from is better and should be followed by these online compilers. Moreover, these online compilers have omitted shloka-number and used line-number instead (each shloka has two lines in amarkosha), which vastly reduces the value of their efforts, because you must quote shloka number and not line number. But in this online version, you will find it hard to determine where a shloka begins or ends ! Vinay Jha 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

India quick links

utcursch | talk 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing of talk pages

Please try to avoid editing active discussions on talk pages as you did here: [2]. Such changes make it more difficult for editors to keep a running track of what is happening. We are not engaged in a one-to-one conversation, and many other editors may be silently monitoring our work, entering only if they see something that concerns them. Some editors will check this page once in a month. Keeping a running series of conversations is part of the audit trail for Wikipedia. There can be times when editing a finished conversation from the past is useful. That is called "refactoring" and Abcedare did it because the material was old. The current material should not be refactored daily because that makes group participation in the article more difficult. I see that you are getting into the spirit of sourcing, and over the next month we can solve all of the questions about sources, I am sure. Buddhipriya 02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maithil Brāhamana

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Maithil Brāhamana, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/maithili.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I had merely redirected an old Wiki article to a new one because the title of old article was wrong. It seems the contents of old article had something in common with the website reffered to above. I did not create that page within or outside Wiki. But now I have rectified this situation and placed relevant information on the talk page. - Vinay Jha 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Maithili Brahmins. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Abecedare 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments at my talk page. Abecedare 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Precedents

Since you seem to want to enter into the "Indigenous Aryans" debate, I should point out that the long history of Hindutva attempts to subvert Wikipedia, and the fact that they have not succeeded. There have been two arbitration cases,

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

The history of the debate is at

• Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)
• Talk:Indigenous Aryans (India)
• Talk:Out of India theory

and archives. Before you begin arguing in a similar vein, you should be aware of what has been discussed before. I respect your contributions as a Sanskrit scholar, but if you're going to push ideological points, you would do well to recognize that very dedicated people have attempted this before you, and have failed. Based on Wikipedia policy, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, there is simply no way to present an opinion as mainstream, when in fact it isn't, no matter how much you would like to. dab (𒁳) 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bantu

There is no possible connection between names in the Bantu languages of East Africa and words or names in Sanskrit. The Bantu languages originated in West Africa, in the region where the state of Cameroon now is, and spread to the east and south. They did not reach East Africa until the middle centuries of the first millennium CE. At no point in their spread did they have contacts with speakers of Indo-Iranian or even Indo-European languages. There were some contacts between East African Bantu languages, especially Swahili (the trade language of the east coast of Africa) and Indo-Iranian languages (particularly Persian) later on, due to trade across the Indian Ocean. The primary exterior influence on the Bantu languages of East Africa after that time was, however, Arabic.

I am afraid I cannot concur with your theory that Mount Meru is based on a mountain in East Africa. My own theory is that it is based upon a high mountain in the western Pamir region which forms a geographical pivot for the dispersal of the Indo-Iranian speaking peoples. However, as I cannot demonstrate this interesting theory except through original research, I refrain from placing it on Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same. RandomCritic 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"I am unfortunate that you misinterpreted my ideas. Whatever I contributed to Indian astronomy was based upon well established sources. For instance, Mt Meru on equator is not my theory but based upon ancient texts, eg. Surya Siddānta: Bhoogolādhyāya:34-48 (Burgess)."

You mean your interpretation of those texts. Interpretation still constitutes original research. You are also quite mistaken as to the basis of my idea, and it's quite presumptuous of you to claim to know what it's based on without asking me. It has nothing to do with Kashmir at all. RandomCritic 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I stated what I had heard from others about Pamir and and Kashmir long ago; I did not say Kashmir &c was your theory. As far as my contributions to 'Indian Astronomy',I never said my interpretation. Read my contributions again, I have cited 17 references in just one section 'Merucentricism' and if you pay attention to facts cited you will find that I can manage hundreds of additional citations for whatever I have stated there. Still you call it my theory because you want to invoke original research against me. If you are determined to invoke original research, I cannot prevent you. But you must ponder over just three citations :(1)"the central point of Jambudvipa ; all the planets revolve round it"(-Monier-Williams). (2)G.Thibat's translation of Varah Mihir : "The sun when at the equinoctial point revolves round so much (3200 yojanas) of the earth from Meru as centre", and (3)Thibaut's personal comment interpreting "Meru as pole". Thibaut accurately translated the text Meru-madhya as "Meru as centre" but wrongly interpreted that pole is the centre of earth or of sun's orbit. If this centre is assumed to be earth's centre at the core, it is just not possible because Meru lies on a continent Jamboodvip (already cited) and a continent cannot be within the earth. Is it my Original Resarch ? You are a rational person ; please do not distort fact. I agree with the idea that Meru forms a geographical pivot for the dispersal of all peoples of the earth, and again it is is not my theory, but the finding of scientists. Humans originated around Meru 4 million years ago. Pamir was possibly named ParoMeru (during Alexander's times, Paro was prefixed to mountains in West India, cf. 'Ta Indika') from which ParoMeru >Pameru> Pamir might have been derived. But Wiki will never accept such ideas, although I have no personal objection. Pamir is the origin of many great mountains but not of any major branch of humans : it is highly inhospitable. -Vinay Jha 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Rgveda Dating Controversy

I have not edited the Rigveda article, so don't have any specific views on the content of the dispute itself but I have replied to your message on my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare 01:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added my reply to your latest comment on my talk page. Abecedare 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating

Vinayji, I am not a scholar as you are. Kindly let me the know following, so I have a better perception on all these matters with regards to the dating of the Vedas.

From what I've recently studied, I come to know the following.

• The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid, the reason I feel the same is because, not all the 4 vedas are very much inline. That is not all say the same. So, it is quiet possible that there should have been disregards about issues and it is probably changed. Again two different Yajur Vedas. Again it is quiet possible that 1 sect of Hindu Pandits hear a part of the Version and the other Hindu Pandits heard the other remaining parts of the Yajur Veda.)
• The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions.
• During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone.

So, what are all the

• current findings based on??
• what are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same.
• which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune. BalanceRestored 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted another question about the Difference of opinion in the 4 Vedas. Eg. Origin etc. BalanceRestored 10:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions asked to Vinay Jha about Veda Dating

[moved from Talk:Rigveda dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ]

Vinayji, I am not a scholar as you are. Kindly let me the know following, so I have a better perception on all these matters with regards to the dating of the Vedas.

From what I've recently studied, I come to know the following.

• The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid)
• The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions.
• During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone.

So, what are all the

• current findings based on??
• what are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same.
• which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune. BalanceRestored 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You have asked intricate questions, and even summarised answer will be lengthy, which I am here providing :

(I have once referred to my own research in the following , but whatever I have stated there is based upon facts and sources and I have not even mentioned the findings of my own research. I have no intention to publish my research anywhere.)

(1)Question : "The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid)". Answer : The Vedas were written down for the first time at the end of first millenium AD, when scholars anticipated a decrease in the willingness to preserve the Vedas as Shruti alone. But the content of all the Vedas had been exactly fixed during the Vedic period itself by means of ANUKRAMANIKĀ which listed all verses in proper order. ANUKRAMANIKĀ cannot be challenged as far as their authenticity is concerned; they are referenced in ancient texts. Hence if you have read somewhere that the "The Vedas are possibly changed", the author is certainly distorting facts so as to push some personal agenda or hypothesis.

(2)Question :"The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions." Answer : Meaning change within short spans. In Sanskrit, sambhrānta means a 'completely confused or mad person', but in Hindi it means 'a cultured and respected person'. In English, 'delight' originally meany 'away from light' which gave rise to the modern meaning of 'sensory pleasure' because 'enlight-enment required austerities which were disliked by the philistine majority in real life. Hence, the only proper means to get the meaning of any ancient or modern text is its proper context and milieu. Mahābhārata contains verses which lie side by side but were composed with a mutual difference of millenia. Such verses can be properly recognized and interpreted only by judging them against the social-econonomic-political-religious milieu to which their content might belong.

(3) Question : "During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone." Answer : Few rivers disappear totally. Sarasvati is the sole exception among major rivers. But the major problem of alluvial regions is that these plains are formed by alluviua brought by rivers which constantly shift courses as a result of their own silts and destroy sites. It is not possible to excavate more than one thousand years of continuous settlement in the Gangetic valley (an average, based upon examination of excavation reports of Archaeological Survey of India). We normally find ancient remains of Buddhist period only at those sites which had beed abandoned around 600 AD (end of Second Urbaisation in India). Most of settlements in Gangetic valley have unbroken continuity, and therefore everything before nearly 1000 AD lies submerged in groundwater. Only 30 layers at Mohenjodaro could be excavated, 39 lie submerged, although Mohenjodaro is away from river and lies in a region of scanty rainfall. Same is the case with most of the ancient sites of Sumer and Egypt also. Gangetic valley becomes almost a sea during monsoons when groundwater level also rises. Hence, it does not show ancient remains, although all ancient texts refer to it as the nucleus of India's population. Mostly, summarised reports of excavations are misleading because they state that a particular site yielded 'XYZ-items' during 'ABC-period', but fail to mention that groundwater prevented further excavations; hence, historians relying upon secondary sources assume that this site did not exist before 'ABC-period'. Personal examination of excavation reports of a sufficiently large number of sites has convinced me that an overwhelming majority of historians are not ready to invest enough time and labour in getting to the truth and are only interested in mass production of research papers and books by quoting each other; this method is a shortcut to gain academic recognition. Heavy rains and groundwater has destroyed almost the whole prehistory of Central Africa where mankind evolved, as well as of Gangetic Valley which produced a vast literature whose archaological context has nearly (not totally) vanished. Sumer, Egypt, Harappa are dry areas, hence remains were preserved even in riparian belts. There are C-14 dated findings at many sites in the Gangetic Vally which prove settlements nearabout or even prior to 3000 BCE, but mainstream historians explain away such findings as exceptions or results of imagined earthquakes and do not even mention them in books and journals because of a fear of backlash from the Aryan Invasion Theorists. Opinions of topmost archaelogists who carry out these excavations do not find a mention in 'mainstream' textbooks. Scientific examination of human remains in Europe and India has proven that no migration took place either way after 3000 BCE. Hence, even if any migration occurred, it must have happened before 3000 BCE. Linear-B has demolished the linguistic foundation on whose basis Rgvedic dating of 1500 BCE was postulated (explained below). But there is a strong "mainstream" lobby which refuses to listen anything and resorts to personal attacks, abuses, etc. instead of discussing the problems in a neutral and scholarly manner, and brands every critic as an obscurantist or a lunatic. If you prepare a list of places, rivers, states, towns, etc. mentioned in the Rgveda from primary source (taking help from secondary sources but with caution), you will also be branded as a Hindutva mystic, and experts like Witzel will blacklist you for conducting such a researches, because a thorough and neutral research demolishes the theories which they have have preached all along. See the threats DAB has issued to me (under ' Precedents' on my talk page) as a result of certain points I raised concerning the dating of Rgveda in the Talk:Rgveda.

(4)Question : "So, what are all the current findings based on?? ". Answer : Current findings ('opinions' will be a better word instead of 'findings') regarding the dating of Rgveda are based on A. Kaegi's ideas in Germany, who was a historian in 19th century and not a linguist. Max Müller popularised this dating in the name of 'linguistic evidence'. I also believed in these views, till I studied the great German masterpieces on Indo-European linguistics. Facts were meticulouslu gathered and analysed, but mostly, facts were suppressed in the name of "academic consensus". I am giving an instance. According to tree model in Indo-Europeanism, European languages were divided into two great branches : North (Slavo-Germanic) and South (Kelt-Italic-Greek). Both these branches showed greater affinities to Sanskrit than to each other. A natural conclusion was that India was the homeland. But India was a non-white and slave country. Hence, Central Asia was declared to be the homeland, although Central Asia had not yielded any trace of either linguistic or archaeological connection with IE family in 19-th century. Genuine voices were drowned in the name of consensus among Indo-Europeanists. It was a heyday for German nationalism. A few decades later, one linguistic affinity was discovered between Keltic and Teutonic, and the former Tree model was instantly with a Ring Model, in which India got a place at the far eastern periphery and the centre of this ring lied somewhere around Slovakia. This model is being followed even today. A single linguistic affinity between Keltic and Teutonic was sufficient for deducing such important conclusions ! Unfortunately, historical linguistics is a highly technical subject and there are hardly any genuine experts today. Most of the 'experts' are making a mockery of the field. Descriptive Linguistics has made great theoretical and empirical advances in the 20th century, but whenever its scientific methods are used for IE, a great hue and cry is raised agaist 'invasions by lunatics, obscurantists,etc'. It took me 12 years of painstaking research along the principles of modern linguistics to get to the truth, which I decided not to publish, because it was a vast and technical work which few will understand and many will abuse. I did not even make a fair copy out of my rough versions (I have no plan to put my findings in Wiki hence DAB should nor cry out OR/NOR, because I decided over a decade ago that I will not publish my work). If you want proof of the fact that the method of 19th century linguists was unscientific, read the initial chapter of Leonard Bloomfield's famous textbook 'Language'. Unfortunately, he criticised the method of his predecessors in short but instead of showing a new path he asked linguists to leave this field and himself repeated the conclusions of old linguists in his book ! This is the "mainstram" of DAB, and it is not a fault of DAB.

(5)Question : "What are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same." Answer : Chief reasons behind dating the Rgveda to 1500-1200 BC were never clearly stated by any principal linguist, but it was based upon following premises :(1) Rgvedic community was assumed to be largely pastoral (forgetting the fact that an overwhelming majority of Brahmanas despised urban life till modern times, when Permanent Settlement of Lord Cornwallis destroyed the very basis of their life), (2) earlist historically attestable event of Europe was the Battle of Troy, which was fought by those Greeks who could be placed at par with the pastoral Vedic people in level of material culture, (3) Rgveda belonged to same stock to which Greek belonged, and therefore the bulk of Rgveda must have belonged to cir.1200 BC. This line of reasoning was apparently reasonable and convincing, and was adopted by a majority of educated Indians as well.

In 1952, Ventris (cf. above for reliable reference) deciphered Linear-B which proved that Mycenaenian Greeks enjoyed developed civic life upto 1450 BC. Hence, pastoral predecessors of these Greeks must have existed around 2000 BC. But there was a developed urban culture in Indus Valley around 2000 BC. Hence Rgveda had to be placed well before the beginings of urbanisation in the Indus Valley, ie, before 3000 BC. This date was unacceptable to Eurocentricists. Hence, 1500-1200 BC is being publicised as an established linguistic fact and all attempts to investigate this question is being dogmatically opposed.

(6)Question : "which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune." Answer :"There are manuscripts outside Bhandarkar Institute also, and all the extant manuscripts of RV in the world together with explanatory notes have been published by Vaidika Samshodana Mandala of Pune (it has been reprinted in France as well). See Talk:Svadhyaya for details. -Vinay Jha 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab deleting discussion at talk pages is correct

I did not myself like the way Dab deletes, but WP:TALK can be used only to discuss adjustments to the main article using WP:V articles. Well, dab could have explained the same. But he is very careless. BalanceRestored 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You will need to write your views at my talk page, or your own. I've add your talk page in my watch list, so, when ever you will make a change to your talk page, I will know about the same.BalanceRestored 11:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

can you please stop shopping on admin talkpages with claims that I "abuse" you? It is you who is abusing Wikipedia by filling pages and pages with general musings and personal opinions. This is not what Wikipedia is for, alright? If you have a source to cite, cite it briefly and to the point, and if you don't, feel free to keep the talkpages clean for people who do. This holds for everybody. It doesn't matter who you are. Even Vishvamitra himself if he edited Wikipedia would face sanctions if he failed to respect the rules. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signing

Hi. On talk pages, please use 4 tildes (~~~~) after your comments. When you save the page, the tildes will be automatically converted to a link to your user page and the date and time the comment was left. Thanks! Samuel Grant 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

And you will remain that way until you retract the legal threat you made against Dbachmann. We do not tolerate that form of bullying. Moreschi ^Talk 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your email

I received your email, and all issues of disagreements between you and other editors (which I haven't taken a look at) aside, I find your assigning racial motives to editors you are in dispute with to be unworthy of you, if not outright despicable.
If you decide to request an unblock, you can see the instructions at WP:APB and also read WP:LEGAL. FYI the block review request will be handled by an independent administrator, and not Moreschi. Abecedare 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Vinay, I recently appealed that you be given a second chance after your leagal threat, and even posted an unblock request on your behalf. However the first edits you made after being unblocked were:

• Reverted Dab's correct edit which (1) consolidated all the dating refs in one place and (2) made sure that the lead matched the article.
• Placed a talk page comment which was both uncivil, assumed bad faith and attacked a user rather than address the content (example: "which shows he is really not interested in studying the sources and is befooling everyone in Wiki by writing falsely sourced articles to impress others with his dab-ness", "Had DAB read Max Maxmüller ...", as well as this edit)

Such tendentious behaviour is not well regarded on wikipedia, and I am afraid that if you don't mend your actions they will sooner-or-later lead to you being blocked from editing here. I therefore advice you to revert your edit on Rigveda and edit your remarks on the talk page. I hope I will not have to regret having spoken up for you. Regards. Abecedare 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. your behaviour is deteriorating. You refuse to listen to friendly advice, you are incapable of going back on your actions, and you still fail to respect the purpose and rules of Wikipedia. In short, your behaviour is that of a spoilt child that for once didn't get its way. I don't have time or motivation to prance around with you like that, and you will have no joy, and no effect on Wikipedia if you don't reconsider your approach. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To DAB : I have a long list of your "friendly advices" of leaving Wiki, opening my own website, etc . I have a list of your flaunting the rules of Wikipedia (eg, abusing me personally, your OR, POV, unsourced matter, etc), and I understand what your threat above means "you will have no joy, and no effect on Wikipedia" : it clearly implies that you will try your best to give me "no joy" and my works will be wiped out by you. Even my students occupy superior academic posts, but you are abusing me again as "a spoilt child". Indeed, your behaviour is deteriorating. The problem here is rooted in your rude and offensive language. All disputes can be solved if people observe WP:CIVIL . Had you a slightest respect for Wiki's policies, you would have apprediated my imrovements to Rgveda today, in which I corrected many factual errors in statements and sourcing (without any motive against you, believe me). Had I erred, you would have named my errors, which I would have mended gladly. You are angry because you cannot point out a single error in my edits. Had you waited for a day or two, your misgigivings would have evaporated, but you have no patience. -Vinay Jha 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only person who has given you advice, and before you started your nonsensical campaign, I was as friendly as anyone. I don't want to discuss this further. There are many Wikipedians, and if you are willing to take advice, you have a large choice of possible mentors. I won't even begin discussing questions of encyclopedic style or formatting. If you want to learn, ask other editors. If you don't want to learn, you'll have to live with being reverted. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page.
You may also wish to consider getting a wiki-mentor who you can turn to for advice regarding wikipedia policies and style. Cheers. Abecedare 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A request

Vinay, your knowledge and contributions to various articles is certainly welcome. As are educated comments about the subjects on the talk pages. I havent examined all your accusations about dab (you havent given the relevant diffs, for starters), but even if I were to take your word for it, I think its time that you came out of your dab fixation. If you feel that something that dab has written is not right, by all means place a {{fact}} tag at the end of the sentence. If you feel that what you're saying is right, then be prepared to produce your citation (title of the book, author, p# + a quote (preferably)). We'll examine both and if both are from reliable sources, in the interest of WP:NPOV, we will modify the prose so as to give due weight to both POVs. It is really just as simple as that. Especially for things like etymology etc., (whether its rc or rch or rcha or rchcha or whatever), it should be really easy to decide once we see the sources and read what they say. If there is still any ambiguity or disagreement about how things are worded, you can go for a "Request for comment" or informally request active editors for their opinions.

Also another way to go about things is, create new articles instead of trying to add your content straightaway to existing articles. For example, you said that you wanted to write about existing manuscripts, commentaries etc of the RigVeda (I request that you do it for all vedic/sanskrit texts). So instead of trying to weave it into the Rigveda article straightaway, create a suitably titled new article. Write whatever you want there and add your citations. Once that is done, it should be relatively easy for us to import a summary of that article into the main Rig Veda article. Note however, that while content forks are allowed, POV forks are not allowed per Ps and Gs. A POV fork is where you pick your POV and write all about your POV.

Yes.. I know that some of the things on wp dont make sense all the time, but that is the way it is. Even if Panini.. why Panini, even if Veda Vyasa himself were to edit wikipedia, he would have to cite his sources!

As for your block, I spoke in your defence because I really think that you were wronged (still feel that way.. I still feel that well meaning new editors should be warned before being dealt blocks). I recognise you as a 'well meaning' newbie though you do seem to be having some trouble understanding wikipedia as a concept. It is normal for newbies to be confused about several things around here and I am sure you will learn fast. Until then, please calm down and go a little slow because sometimes trying to do too much too fast can also be our undoing. More later. Regards. Sarvagnya 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Books

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Veda I've started this topic here. Kindly contribute. One can actually present personal findings here. BalanceRestored 12:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In Reply

Don't misunderstand me. Before postng any talk to a user, it is my habit to make a survey of that user's user and talk pages and some of his/her edits. I have a high regard for you on account of the information I could gather about you. As fas as your suggestion about "comments being made by other editors" , this is what I meant when I said that I was being projected as a vandal (not by all of them). You are being misled by others' comments . You will be forced to revise your views when you will know the truth, for which you will never find time. But you may find some time to look at the latest instance of my "inappropriate approach" in last para of Talk:Rgveda. -Vinay Jha _{Vinay Jha} 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vinay - You are missing the point. I judged your edit as an edit. If Dab had made the edit, or if Buddhipriya had made the edit, or Abecedare, whoever - I didn't agree with it, as it made the introduction more confusing to the reader. Simple as that. Everything else, about me "being misled by others comments" is your own imagination. I had never read through your user talk page, and was not aware that you had been having heated debates with a number of other editors. Your edits on the Rig Veda article are irrelevant. They could be the greatest, most perfect edits in the whole of existence - it would not have changed my viewpoint on this one very small edit which I made to remove a wiki-link. Peace Brother - Om Shanti :-) Gouranga(UK) 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Another request

Please stop with your incivil and off-topic railings against User:Dbachmann on multiple article talk pages. ([3], here]) If you have a problem with the user take it to dispute resolution. Several editors including User:Buddhipriya, User:SheffieldSteel, User:Sarvagnya, User:GourangaUK have given you similar advice, and currently you are simply proving Dab's point, that you are a crank and a tendentious editor with a deletirious effect on this project. Abecedare 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily Dose of Abuses

Reply : What one will do if someone makes it a policy to call him silly, insane ,crack, incapable of reason, having mediaeval mindset, etc almost everyday ? Cf. my previous talk on Talk:Rgveda, where I had refrained from retorting to any of his abuses and requested him to not to use Wiki pages for such effusions and use my email if he wants to abuse me. I hoped he will calm down. In return, he declared a decision of biting and applied it in Hindism (Edit Summary) by calling me silly. DAB's performance as an editor also suffers on account of these things, and my time is wasted too. Do you think I relish a futile discussion with a person whom I hoped will help me in Wiki ? In the society I live in, even calling a person by his first name (e.g., Vinay) is held to be an insult; only elders (relatives only) do so. I know there are good people in Wiki and that is why I an still here. I know you feelings and it is not necessary to answer me. Regards. -Vinay Jha 17:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to dispute resolution if you wish, but don't spam article talk pages with complaints about user behaviour. Abecedare 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

feel free to compile a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct on my behaviour. Be sure to follow the instructions. Create Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 2 with the initial content {{subst:RfC|Dbachmann}}. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no time for useless disputes. -Vinay Jha18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

then stop spamming people. Either complain about me at an RfC, or not at all. dab (𒁳) 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Email

If you are interested, You can [Email] me . -Bharatveer 13:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Indian astronomy

I am not involved with the article and you should discuss with the other editors there to resolve any content dispute, or call an RFC for third-party comments. For what its worth, I too think that the content User:Bharatveer deleted was in some cases unencyclopedic and in almost all cases qualified as original research (example: Burgess translates the word "bhoogola-madhya" as 'middle of the earth-globe' and not as 'on the equator'. But even a cursory glance at any good atlas shows us Mt Kenya approximately on the equator and a town Meru there. 'Meru' name is applied to names of another mountain, tribe, language, province, etc in central Africa.) and was thus unsuitable for wikipedia. Abecedare 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that after repeated requests not to rewrite things without outside sources, you have provided an article text that is nearly completely void of references, and qualifies as original research. As a reminder, wikipedia is not after truth, but verifiability. --Rocksanddirt 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt is shocked because he rests his opinion upon those of others without reading my contribution 'Merucentric Astronomy' in Indian astronomy which was well referenced. See my answer on Talk:Indian astronomy.--Vinay Jha 07:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay Jha (talk • contribs).

Put the references into the text of the article. That is what everyone is asking you to do. I don't have the references, I havn't read any of the historical documents that these articles are about, and I don't really care about them. When I looked earlier the was not a single reference in the first two paragraphs of the article and there likely should have been several. PUT THEM IN PLEASE! --Rocksanddirt 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding warnings and dab and such

my advice is to not post to his talk page, ask others politely to point out the specific items needing help. Dab spends to much time dealing with straight up vandals to handle a real new wikipedian nicely, that's no valid excuse for incivility, but there you are. Spend your effort on articles and article talk pages, try to keep comments as short and consice as possible. I notice that the multiple paragraph talk page piece manny editors write I tend to gloss over and not read as closely as I should. The topics you are interested in seem to attrack people with current political reasons for instituting a historical precedence for cultural supremacy, please be careful that you are not contributing to that unpleasantness also. --Rocksanddirt 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I always sign properly but the link never comes up. I even asked for help, but no one knows the reason. I have to manually type the code of signature, which I omit on my own talk page. Here again, I am signing properly but the link will not come. I am helpless. --Vinay Jha 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

are you trying to say, you are unable to type "~~~~" or click on the button? That's rather astounding, I must say, especially for an ~expert in practical methods of computations" dab (𒁳) 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

did you go to Special:Preferences and check whether "raw signature" is selected? dab (𒁳) 11:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I had posted the following message to DAB's talk page, which he deleted ; hence I put it here, which is a reply to DAB's remarks above :

Cool a bit !

When I failed to open my account in my name ,I requested an admin and he helped me, but the help came too late because I had opened an account in another name by then. This admin created my account as I requested, but too late. Now I had two accounts. I requested him to cancel the wrong name ( which was working well, together with sign). He responded with a delay, In the meantime, I requested you to delete the wrong user account. You answered by turning me into a sockpuppet. Do you remember ? The other admin helped me out of this situation, for which I was not responsible. But after that, by signature never works properly. Now you are throwing sarcastic remarks about my ability of handling computers.

You are making a fuss about building an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is a great job, made by dedicated team of scholars. Had you any serious interest in encyclopedia, you would have devoted your energies in scholarly works or in impartial administration. You are too impatient and dictatorial, which wastes half of your own time over useless controversies which might have been avoided had you not pushed your ego in administration. I had requested IAF not to waste his time over you, but you also provoke others unnecessarily, because you imagine everyoue from India is ideologically motivated. Even a good advice is answered by an abuse. I left Surya Siddhanta. Then left Rgveda, just to get rid of you. Now you drove me out of Indian astronomy. Was I putting Hinduism or Indocentricism there ? I put 17 secondary and 16 sources in a section which was removed without a discussion, with abuses (from you). You know nothing about these subjects, but keep on poking your nose in between. Now you are teaching me software, forgetting that the problem in my user account was deliberately caused by you when I had asked for help. -Vinay Jha _Talk 12:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

Ok. We are all getting very, very tired of this. This is the last warning before I seek sanctions against you, or simply block myself. Please stop inserting your own personal opinions, original research, and original synthesis into Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for improving Wikipedia by citing your sources recently. Impressive work. Moreschi ^Talk 11:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To DAB

You deleted my post to your talk page and then I got above warning. Do as you like. I do not care. Even a good advice to be cool and friendly to everyone created an adverse effect ! Do you know the etymology of Bachmann ? I will not tell you, because you will call it my POV , OR, etc , and again abuse me. Your abuses do not harm me. Abuse me as much as you like, I will NEVER abuse you or anyone else. You wasted your years stydying linguistics, even a well intentioned message sounds hostile to you ! Now you wanted to scrap Indian astronomy ! Do you think my existence depends upon these articles ? You should change your eating habits for having a cool temperament and friendly attitude to other human beings. -Vinay Jha _Talk 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Utkala Brahmin

Just seen your Utkala Brahmin on the DYK - suggestions page. You have merely stated what you have done but you need to have an interesting 'hook' stating some interesting fact from the article you have put up. Please study the other hooks and you will understand. With regards. - P.K.Niyogi 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yuga

The addition of 4 Yugas sums up to Maha Yuga. The article at Yuga probably needs to be merged to Maha Yuga, kindly check and comment opinions about the Yuga Merger .. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lot of articles those are linking to Pages linking to Yugas, they should have been linking back to Maha Yuga. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahayuga does not need a separate article, it is adequately discussed in Hindu Time Cycles, which has been created bu merging two ther articles of similar themes : Hindu units of measurement and Mahayuga ; all other articles linking to Hindu units of measurement and to Yuga are now automatically linked to Hindu Time Cycles . It is a technical subject and do not distort it. -Vinay Jha 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your article Hindu Time Cycles has been removed. Since you know these technical subjects better than me, it is better you work on them, so I do not distort the same. Also, you can let me know a good book to follow if you want me to correct those on your behalf. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I will keep all my rough work at my soapbox (temp page for rough work), once you think the text is right we can change the same.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Time Cycles has been renamed, not removed. All the matter exists. -Vinay_Jha 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does remain, but the old article on units is now predominantly Hindu Time Cycles. If you need it corrected let me know. It's fine, I know you are aware of the same. I am working on something else today. Do let me know, if you need any help. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read the talk page Hindu units of measurement, I understand there's some confusion. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes,there is confusion. Hindu Time Cycles is a branch of Indian astronomy which is related to two fields : Jyotisha and History of astronomy. But some persons, who have no interest in nor any knowledge of Indian astronomy insist on putting Hindu Time Cycles under units of measurements (which was intended for time, weights, measures, etc, and advised me to leave editing this tpoic. It happens everywhere in Wiki. Wiki needs secondary sources, which is being interpreted as total disregard of primary knowledge. Those who have never touched the Vedas or Indian astronomical texts decide what should be there. It cannot be cured, and Wiki will always face such problems, and we will have to work with such editors, often tolerating insults from ignorant persons who pose as experts. -Vinay_Jha 10:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Time

You committed three sins:

• You created Hindu Time Cylces and failed to mark it for deletion
• You created Hindu Time Cycles with totally unnecessary capitalisation in the title
• worst, you copy&pasted Hindu units of measurement instead of moving it.

I suggest that you leave Hindu units of measurement as it is for the moment and discuss in its talk page any possible move or split of the article. -- RHaworth 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See my answer on your talk page. -Vinay_Jha 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, Please don't make cut-and-paste moves or page moves without discussion. You have been warned about this earlier and I had explained the reasons to you in detail in that instance. Please reread WP:MOVE and if you have any difficulty in understanding it, feel free to ask questions at wikipedia's help desk. Abecedare 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Move failed

DaGizza appended a merge tag to a new article Hindu Time Cycles created by me, after which I tried move command, but it did not work, then I read the merge procedures and acted accordingly, using the redirect function. But history was affected for reasons not clear to me. See the talk in Hindu units of measurement. I want to work on history of Indian astronomy but everywhere I find editors who regard it a part of mythology or of weights and measurements. I left Surya Siddhanta, then I left Indian astronomy, now I am leaving Hindu Time Cycles. See Utkala Brahmin and give comments, if you please. Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, If the "move" failed for some reason, the correct way to proceed would be to ask for help (you could have approached User:DaGizza who had placed the merge tag and is an experienced editor and admin). Making a cut-and-paste move is not an acceptable alternative since, as I had explained earlier, it is disruptive and even more importantly does not comply with the GFDL's legal requirements. Also as I had pointed out earlier you should discuss a page move before implementing it unilaterally. Abecedare 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

DaGizza's user page says "DaGizza is taking a long Wikibreak". I should have waited. -Vinay_Jha 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions regarding Maithil Brāhamana

Two questions:

• I think Maithil Brāhamana moved to Maithil Brahmin to be consistent with all other pages in Category:Brahmins and as per WP:NAME. Are you ok with such a move ?
• The Maithil initially talked about Maithil people while now after your edits it talks only about Maithil brahmins. Is that correct, i.e. are all Maithil people brahmins ?

Abecedare 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maithil brahmins is a good name.
• Maithil brahmins constitute a distint branch of Panch-Gaud which includes all the native brahmins of North India (esp. from Indus to Kosi, later Bengal, Assam and Orissa too). But Maithili is a modern language, hence Maithil means all the people of Mithila who are native speakers of Maithili language. -Vinay_Jha 19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved the page Maithil Brāhamana to Maithil Brahmin.
• Thanks for correcting the lead of Maithil to differentiate it from Maithil Brahmin. It would be good to wikify the page and add some references.

Cheers. Abecedare 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On August 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Utkala brahmin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Vinay. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article! We need more such amazing contributions relating to Indian history and culture. Have a great day. Antorjal 13:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Panch-Gauda and Panch-Dravida

Hi Vinay, your recent work on differents groups of Brahmins has been excellent! I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. One thing I have noticed is that in each article, you keep on mentioning the Panch-Gauda and Panch-Dravida classifications of Brahmins, which is fine. But then you write about these in more detail. I think it is better to create a separate Panch-Gauda article, which you can link, so you don't have to explain it every single time.

Also, sorry about the confusion created from my Wikibreak notice. At the moment, I should be on a Wikibreak because I have fairly important exams coming soon. Furthermore, if you my edits lately, they are quite minor. I don't currently have the time to write articles. Regards Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

well done

You are making great progress now, Vinay. Thanks for your contributions to Brahmin communities.

May I suggest the following points for formatting Sanskrit: When giving Sanskrit in Devanagari, your preferred way of formatting is this:

:{{lang|sa|कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रकाः ।}}
:{{lang|sa|गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा विन्ध्यदक्षिणे ॥}}
:{{lang|sa|सारस्वताः कान्यकुब्जा गौडा उत्कलमैथिलाः ।}}
:{{lang|sa|पन्चगौडा इति ख्याता विन्ध्स्योत्तरवासिनः ॥}}

note usage of the {{lang}} tag (also note the Devanagari danda signs, । and ॥). The preferred romanization is, as you know, IAST, formatted with the {{IAST}} tag. It may be preferable to give shlokas in IAST entirely, since the romanization is lossless, and it is easier on people not familiar with Devanagari. These are just minor points: feel free to ignore them, formatting can always be fixed later (there is no hurry). regards, --dab (𒁳) 06:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not

I'm not bullying you, and I'm sorry you read it that way. I'm just happy you seem to have got over what was bit of a turbulent start. Moreschi ^Talk 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shakadvipi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm no expert in this. A better source than the etymology dictionary would be a published paper referring to them. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Havyaka

Hello Vinay, just thought you would be interested in Havyaka article. Although there isn't much technical information in that article due to lack of sources, it makes an interesting read IMO. Gnanapiti 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good start

You have made a good start and the there is plenty of scope in Wikipedia to present India-related articles. The only thing you have to take care is to keep yourself in line with Wikipedia policies and style. Are you interested only in Sanskrit? There is hardly any information about Bihar and UP. Do you have any interest in that? Keep going. Regards, P.K.Niyogi 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahābhāṣya

I have reverted the massive changes that you made to Mahābhāṣya because you are sourcing them only by mentioning some works as references but are not giving any verifiable inline citations to support specific points. Please try again, but this time cite sources in a way that will enable compliance with WP:V. Your changes are quite interesting, and I look forward to seeing the material worked in a more systematic manner. According to WP:LAYOUT, works cited in Notes should be included in References. This has come up before, so perhaps you simply overlooked it here. Your extensive changes to Sanskrit compounds have the same problem with lack of sourcing. In that case I have not yet reverted them. Please, can we try to improve the quality of these articles by working more slowly to gradually add inline citations rather than simply by making extensive unsourced changes? In the long run, unsourced material will simply be removed by someone, so why not take the extra time to source things in a way that will cause the material to stick around longer? Buddhipriya 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My answers to Buddhipriya

• Wikipedians start with a stub and then gradually expand it. Both Mahābhāṣya and Sanskrit compounds were stubs before I touched them. You reverted my unsourced edits in stubs but did not touch unsourced edits of others !
• Whatever I added can be found in school textbooks. But I am not going to add sources to Sanskrit compounds because all its matter is already elsewhere in Wikipedia. If you really want to convert it into a genuine article, fetch some grammar textbooks and find references, instead of wasting time in edit wars or asking me to do all the work myself. Do some positive work, you are quite capable of that.
• If I find there are serious readers of Mahābhāshya, I will devote more time to it. It is a difficult work and I fear we should not devote much time to it, at least now.
• I had hoped you will help me in sourcing a lot of articles, because sourcing requires time. Instead of reverting, add facts tag, otherwise I can respond only by gradually reducing my activity in Wiki, because I hate fighting.
• Even one's elders should not call a person by his/her first name, unless being closely related. In Wiki everyone calls me by my first name. It is disgusting, and I cannot prevent it. I should not have used my real name. I am changing my sign now. I had earlier imagined that Wikipedians are elderly people because youngsters should not edit an encyclopedia. -Mr Jha 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

South Asian wikipedias

Hi there, if you have some time, please contribute to Hindi wikipedia, Sanskrit wikipedia and Bhojpuri wikipedia as well. Also, I am interested in starting a Maithili edition of wikipedia but dont have enough people to volunteer for it. Could you be of any help on that? Thank you.--Eukesh 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

btw, your work on articles pertaining to different aspects of Mithila is very commendable!--Eukesh 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am finding some of the people here in Nepal by myself. We dont need many people at the beginning and once the wikipedia grows, community forms by itself. You can contact me at eukeshranjit at yahoo dot com for correspondance. Once we have about 5 dedicated people, we can start working for Maithili edition. Thank you.--Eukesh 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ancient Africa

Hi.. I'm not exact;y sure as to the details of your situation, so it should be helpful if you could link me to the article or page diff in question so that I may assess this more appropriately and offer fair advice or an honest opinion. I have no reference point as of now to address your concerns since I couldn't find the edit you were referring to in your recent contributions.Taharqa 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi Article

V Jha, I appreciate your comments on my talk page, which are reasonable. My apologies for a lengthy reply but I want to convey some things that may be helpful. The information available now in English in the West on Sri Ramana and what he actually taught today is far more extensive than back in the early 1970s when some misconceptions were presented as fact. At that time, criticism that westerners did not generally understand Sri Ramana was probably justified, and even today, many in the West claim to be in his lineage or his followers while clearly distorting his life and teachings. Of particular concern is the misconceptions around what Sri Ramana meant by self-enquiry, which was usually presented as a kind of mental or verbal exercise which is exactly what Sri Ramana did not consider anything but preliminary. Some of this is due to inherent difficulties in translating Tamil into English. Today, however, more westerners are experienced in subtle matters and less wedded to semitic POVs, and less inclined to consider Indians primitive, naive and superstitious. Despite many comments I see on Wikipedia from our Indian brothers about what "whites" do not understand about many of the Hindu practices, that is not always the case. And, today there is enough information out there now to present an accurate picture of Sri Ramana, which is my only goal for the Wikipedia article, not to turn it into a propaganda piece. Even the interesting discovery that Sri Ramana did not at age 16 intellectually understand what had happened at first, and considered at first that he might have been possessed in some way (possession by gods is not unknown in India), is worth pointing out because it illustrates that he taught from his own knowledge, not from religious studies, even if it offends someone's fantasies about Sri Ramana.

The article was in sorry shape when I first developed the basic outline for making the biography and practice of self-enquiry accurate that other editors have adapted to complete it. One energetic editor from India in particular developed much of what you see now after my comments about the problems with the structure and accuracy of the article. I was thus frankly taken aback that Bharatveer repeatedly accused me of removing references to Sri Ramana being a Hindu when that was not the case, I was trying to resolve the conflict by clarifying the issue further. Hinduism is such a broad religion with many schools and dharmic interpretations that merely defining someone as a Hindu, even if true, does not tell us much, without further elaboration, even though Hindu dharma does include the possibility that Hinduism is ultimately self-transcending at Mukta. After his repeated reversions, I put my objections on the talk page so that when the time came, I could get support to make the necessary corrections. Bharatveer's latest edit is a good one, so I will try and implement your advice and boldly make the necessary changes. If you have suggestions, just put them on the talk page.

I have emailed David Godman in India a number of times over the years, and despite his many projects, he responds quickly and replies without arrogance and hostility. I think you probably have never emailed him and are thus judging him too harshly. None of us are claiming to be Jnanis, and the point he is making is somewhat minor and technical as I have said, one reason why I prefer clarification reflecting his comments to removing "Hindu". I think he is too busy working on his next book to pay much attention to this latest dispute, and would be dismayed to learn that his suggestions were being interpreted as anti-Hindu and were inflaming unseemly and anti-dharmic religious, ethnic and racial tensions. I urge you to try emailing him directly at david_godman@yahoo.co.uk, and express your concerns about how you and others interpret what he wrote.

I notice from your comments above and other experiences that in the East it is more common to consider use of someone's first name alone unless close friends or related disrespectful, one uses the last name and/or a title first. But here in the West, for example, after a preliminary introduction, it is common for adults of all ages in less formal settings to refer to one more casually by their first name. For example, we might often even simply refer to Ramana when among westerners, while in the East that would be seen as disrespectful and Sri Ramana or Ramana Maharshi would be used (since there are many non-western editors here I try and avoid Ramana). As you prefer, I have not and will not use your first name alone, and editors should honor your request. However, please understand that in most cases if someone did so no offense was met, it was more likely a cross-cultural misunderstanding. This kind of inadvertant discord seems to happen some on Wikipedia where we do not meet face to face but bring cultural assumptions into the dialogue. --Dseer 21:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Took your kind advice and made bold changes to introduction to stick with fact and resolve misunderstandings about Sri Ramana, his teachings, and relation to Hinduism. --Dseer 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If the first name is used during discussion, at least adding "ji" makes it more polite. So in Mr. Jha's case it would be Vinayji. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar

Romila Thapar seems far more reasonable than Wendy Doniger and her "school". It is not clear from what I've seen whether Thapar is really a Marxist or merely finds value in some Marxist concepts as it seems she is saying, and so guilt by association should be avoided. Citing a sourced Marxist opinion of her work would seem reasonable, as well as sourced statements that she is a Marxist, as long as the phrasing makes clear that these are statements and this does not imply she is a Marxist, provided it is sufficiently important and the sources actually say that. I thought the issue was being put as more that the citations did not support the language. What is really needed is a "controversy" section in the article to clarify the sides of the issue. --Dseer 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Prior to this, I have not paid attention to Romila Thapar but have read some of Frawley's material regarding AIT. I am not in a position to evaluate all the criticism of Thapur, while I can do that with Wendy Doniger, Kripal et al because their interpretations of religious texts are obviously biased. I agree AIT seems to be modeled after historical experiences more to the West (Europe, Middle East) where events more like that occurred, while I think the river civiliztions in India probably go back over 10,000 years and that basides the root linguistic relations between languages there was lots of migration and trade along the route that went through that area. It appears that Thapar has much academic support in the West, probably outweighing the criticism, so I think the most productive approach, which I would support, is to create a controvery section in the Thapar article where these issues like the points in the article you sent me can be mentioned to provide more balance to the article.--Dseer 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Hi Vinay. Sorry for replying after so much time (lack of net access and also because I am very busy nowadays). Besides, all your emails were going into my junk folder (don't have a clue why).

I'm afraid I can't agree that Ganesha was worshipped duing Vedic times, because the Vedas donot have mention of him. Gods like Ganesha, Shiva Parvathi etc. arose during the Puranic preriod whcih roughly coincided with the late Vedantic period and ealy Shramana period (around the same time that Buddha and Jainism arose).

Besides, the biggest nutcrackers are not the Europeans but Indians like AnishShah. For example, look at [4] edit of his, which Bakaman keeps correcting.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 08:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

These are from Vedas

Sri Rudram contains

• Namakam,
• Chamakam,
• Manyu Suktam,
• Purusha Suktam,
• Sri Suktam and
• Mantra Pushpam along with
• Laghunyasam

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Verses on Ganapati

• gaNAnAn.h tvA gaNapatiM havAmahe kavim kavInAm- upamashravastamaM | jyeshhTharAjaM brahmaNAn.h brahmaNaspata A naH shR^iNvannUtibhiH sIda sAdanaM || (Rg Veda 2.23.1)
• ni shhu sIda gaNapate gaNeshhu tvAmAhurvipratamaM kavInAM | na R^ite tvat.h kriyate kinchanAre mahAmarkaM maghavan.h chitramarcha || (Rg Veda 10.112.9)

Panchayatana puja

• Rg Veda Mandala 8, sukta 81, R^ik's 1-9,
• Mandala 10 sukta 112 R^ik's 9-10,
• and Mandala 2, sukta 23, R^ik 1.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Obstacles are getting removed. I've got some nice resources that's got a lot of information.

Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant Faced God By Sadguru Sivaya Subramaniyaswami | Loving Ganesa (Online book)

Name

VJha, I apologies for using your first name in my last post on Talk:Ganesha after you had informed me that you found it insulting. I can only assure you that the use was inadvertent, and no disrespect was intended on my part. I may differ with you on content and editorial style from time to time, but would not intentionally use such juvenile tactics to try to belittle or tweak you - since that would be more of a reflection on me than you. I hope you'll take my word on this issue. Regards. Abecedare 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jyotish

Please don't get upset. If I took the discussion to a wider audience, would you please participate in it? Samuel Grant 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Dear Mr. Jha, If you have the time, I would be grateful if you could look in at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Brahmin and dozens of related articles. Thank you, Relata refero (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at [[5]] for my answer.Thanks - VJha (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosi river

Dear Mr Jha,

This article which was earlier enlarged by me but has been substantially mutilated by Sangam Mulmi and others and the revised version does not even accept the contribution of the earlier authors in the history column. External references have been missed (numbers are very much there but there are no refereces or are not shown). There is no continuity of references. Also, one of the pictures which I uploaded on Kosi's shifting courses does not open eventhough the title of the photo is displayed in red colour.The shifting course picture shows exactly what has happaned to the river over centuries of shifting river course. What has happened? Can some one tell me what is happening? And where is the disambaguated article enlarged by me? There is not even mention of my contribution eventhoguh substantial part of my artcle (90% of it) has been utilised.Since you habe been a serious contributor on wikipages can you clarify please. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2002 Gujarat violence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of 29 muslim dargahs, 20 mosques, and 17 Hindu temples and churches 9real numbers may be more). The tomb of Malik Asin was bulldozed, the [[Muhafiz Khan Mosque]] was also destroyed. The tomb of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Violence

I presented bothe sides of the story with neutral sources, but it seems you have no time to check these sources and carried out a wholesale reverting of my edits. Here is one example : this article gave a wrong reference to Krishna Iyer which is a playback singer, I corrected it and linked it to Justice V R Krishna Iyer (click this link to read that Wikipedia article, which I never edited, it states Mr Iyer was a minister in communist government in Kerala). But you reverted my edit, alleging my edit was unsourced. Is my linking to already existing Wikipedia article "unsourced"? Wikipedia is not for pushing communist POVs, neutrality and sourcing is my concern as well as Wikipedia's. I hope you will understand that I am not "pushing" any POV but presenting both sides of the coin as well as presenting court verdict which was missing from the article. Nevertheless, if someone insists on pushing the communist POV by hiding the communist link of Krishna Iyer, I will not take the matter to Wikipedia Tribunal, because I have no time for useless fights. VJha (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions; I checked every one of your sources. If you want a detailed list of reasons, here you go:

1) The point about the Banerjee commission (the one begun by Lalu Yadav) was already covered above, and therefore unnecessary.

2) The point about the Nanavati-Shah commission was also already covered. You need to read the section before making additions.

3) The point about 31 people being convicted is necessary, and I have no objections to your adding it; just don't link it to the unnecessary stuff above, and please make it grammatical.

4) The point about the "Kar Seva" programs is not sourced. Also, even if you find a source for that, please don't mess with existing content in order to add it.

5) The content you are adding about the army and curfew is alright, but you need to watch for repetition; there are many cases where you are basically duplicating sentences. I can help you with this, if you so wish.

6) The point about Iyer needs a source. Also, it is not very necessary; the CCT has its own POV, and that is made explicit; how does the fact that he is a communist change that? We already know the CCT is very anti-Modi.

7) The random insertion of "31 convicted Muslims" is very unnecessary.

I have reverted you once more. If you take these issues into account, I will be happy to make your insertions work. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk)

20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I read your comments to me. Why you say I did not give a source for Krishna Iyer's communist past ? I gave the link to pre-existing Wikipedia article on him : V R Krishna Iyer. Please read the first few pages of his report and the list of 8-members (find it through Google Search, there are three PDF files): CCT was a private body comprising some leftists only. As for my "repetitions", I briefly brought three different standpoints at one place so that readers could compare all standpoints. There is no bias in my edits, my sole purpose was to present a holistic view. As for Kar Seva, entire Ayodhya issue (Babri Masjid) since 1992 is a result of VHP's Kar Seva and there are thousands of links to it, on Wikipedia too. The reason why I introduced it is because due to VHP's link to Kar Sevaks killed in the train, a planned reprisal took place. Without VHP's involvement, there would not have been a great backlash. And due to VHP. Gujarat govt had no courage to act firmly. You will see I have no bias for anyone, I simply tried to make the article better, neutral and factual with proper sources. You displayed the decency of discussing. But I find another editor is reverting without discussing. I request you to improve this article with the help of sources I have provided (they are all leftist or neutral sources, none of them are pro-Modi). I have little time for editing Wikipedia due to my preoccupations, and I have no interest in fighting with editors. Please help. VJha (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that Iyer's own page lists him as a communist. So, it should be easy to copy a source. I was saying it was not necessary, though, because (like you said) the CCT was composed of leftists; and we have not claimed at any point that it was neatral; so there is no need to mention this. It would be like saying "Modi is an RSS" member," which is true but unnecessary. Can you see my point?

As for the rest of it; I can see why you are repeating those points, but it goes contrary to wikipedia style, so I will not be replacing that. I can attempt to introduce some of the other content. Your point about the kar sevaks having VHP links, I think may be important, but most people consider it obvious. I will look into it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed, I reverted you once more, for the reasons I gave. I will work on some of the points you raised (I am busy too, so give me a couple of days, but I will do it).

Also, you are currently on three reverts, so I would not recommend reverting again, as some editor will likely drag you to ANEW and get you blocked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

you are reverting wholesale, without taking into account your aforementioned views. Secomdly, what you view as "obvious" is not so obvious for all readers. Wikipedia articles should be for everyone and not only for those who are familiar with India. I think you will devote some time to improve this article. If you revert it again, I will not interfere. What you call repetitions is due to improper placements of sentences, and you you may improve it instead of wholesale reverting. VJha (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 

Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)