User talk:Hölderlin2019

≤== Welcome! ==

Hello, Hölderlin2019, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nittawinoda (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Routledge a non-academic publisher?

About this edit: Are you sure that Routledge is a non-academic publisher?

I agree that the reference is not primarily concerned with the main topic of the article, so it is not an ideal tertiary source about the ongoing "debate", but Olson is an academic scholar who is far from propagating "fringe crankery". Please read the passage from the source [1]. Olson 1) starts with the mainstream view, then 2) describes the Indus-Valley-to-Vedic theory, and finally 3) describes a third position that suggest "mutual cultural influence". However, only the second part was quoted (more or less verbatim), which makes it appear as if Olson defends the Indigenous Aryans bunk. The only thing Olson can be blamed for is that he portrays the dispute between the scholarly mainstream view and the ideologically motivated Indigenous Aryans "theory" as if these positions were on equal footing. I'll reinsert the source at the end of the paragraph, but leave the quoted text out, which was redundant anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salvador (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you edited under another account?

If so, please identify those accounts. I find your editing patterns strange. You pop up on pages that you've never edited before only to revert me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. To my knowledge, I’ve only reverted two of your edits, both of which consisted of undue lede additions. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how you came to revert edits on those pages shortly after I did. Do you just happen to watchlist those two articles that you had never edited before? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I recently visited the Kushner article because I wanted to read it. I was struck by the inappropriateness of the lede — as were several other editors. Rereading the Kushner article, I became curious as to whether or not you were generally prone to inserting policy-violating ot otherwise undue material in leads generally. I’ll note that the reverts I made were backed by multiple others in both articles. You should take care to avoid infusing your POV so nakedly into your editing. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You must completely refrain from doing WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based removals like here, here, here and elsewhere. Siddsg (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You must completely refrain from editing in topics you evidently know nothing about, particularly given your recent history of being admonished for edit warring on articles on which discretionary sanctions are in place. My removing the ‘quote’ from the articles on Hinduism and homosexuality has nothing to do with my personal preferences, and everything to do with the fact that the quote in question appears nowhere in the actual text of the Rigveda. You are welcome to demonstrate to me where I am in error by linking to the *actual* passage in the running text of the Rigveda which contains the quote I removed, *or* to a scholarly work by a Sanskritist documenting the passage with a translation (you should start with Jamison & Brereton). If you cannot (and you won't be able to - it's actually a quote from an entirely unrelated document), the quote will remain out of the articles. Frankly, even the form of the quote being cited - Vikruti Evam Prakriti establishes that the quoter is unfamiliar with Sanskrit, since the syllabic r̥ is transliterated in two different ways, which is not an error a Sanskritist would make. To say nothing of the translation itself, which is off.

The statement I removed from the article mleccha misrepresents the source, which does not make anachronistic claims about whether or not ancient cultic practies meet the standards of *modern* Hindu practice. I've revised it to reflect the source. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

See WP:IDHT and WP:DE especially when you make erroneous claims[2][3] even when the added sources are supporting the text. [4][5] Your reverts came after getting reverted over the same problem earlier and you were notified on your talk page about it and even after one other editor reverted you. Though it seems that you haven't read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would recommend you to read WP:RGW as well. Siddsg (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)l

Are you able to link to the actual verse in the text of the Rig Veda, or provide an academic source from a Sanskritist, establishing the presence of the quote in the Rig Veda? I’m not righting great wrongs; I’m simply pointing out that there is no support whatsoever for the existence of this phrase in the Rig Veda in the academic literature dealing with the Rig Veda itself. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the two sources is from Ashgate Publishing which is an academic book and journal publisher. No need to say more. Siddsg (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a source by a *Sanskritist*; that's a source on queer theory, etc., which does not make it a reliable source for claims about Sanskrit texts, especially since they themselves have not sourced the claim. Can you explain why this passage appears nowhere in the text of the Rigveda, and why it is not present in any of the academic sources on the Rig Veda, such as Witzel's, or Jamison & Brereton? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

They have no expertise in LGBT history by a long shot that's why they don't bother. But nonetheless, a simple google search shows me gazillions of reliable sources supporting the information so all you can do now is that you can read WP:OR. Siddsg (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)