User talk:DPSingh

Welcome!

Hello, DPSingh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bachman conveniently deleted sisodia's criticism

I am restoring it back. We will use this to file a complaint. I am looking into it right now and will post once it is filed. This buffoon cannot distinguish dhamma from dharma and he claims to know Sanskrit.

Please forward this mail of mine to whoever in charge of taking disciplinary action.

Hi,

I would like to bring to your notice the disruptive behaviour of the user "dab" on the development of the Wikipedia article "Rajput". Please read the charges below.

Charge 1. This user has indulged in consistent vandalism on Wikipedia page for "Rajputs" by indulging in revert wars. Here are the links of a few of his reverts. All of these reverts were without any valid explanation or an inclination to discuss the issue in talk pages. All the reverts were an attempt to replace the most agreeable version with a unfinished, unrefined and deeply disputed stub version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31951019&oldid=31933546 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31886107&oldid=31885866 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31885093&oldid=31884990 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31754025&oldid=31752713

Charge 2. This user has also shown a total contempt for civil behaviour. His language has been condescending in the least and plainly abusive frequently. Some samples of his words.

"So they had "Universities" in India, in 500 BC? Good for them; too bad you were not there to get some education."

"For the nth time, add your sad stuff, but don't remove the precious few sourced statements."

"since you (Singhs) are clearly incapable of as much as adding a book to the references section properly, I have done that for you now."

Charge 3. This user has grossly abused his previleges as an administrator of Wikipedia to block valuable contributers of Wikipedia at his whim. User:DP Singh and User: Shivraj Singh were blocked without rhyme or reason.

Charge 4. This user's knowledge of the subject of this article is very poor; he even confuses well established chronologies like of Ashoka's reign and Gita's compilation. Yet he insists on having the last word on the article "Rajput".

In the light of these charges, we propose that the user "dab" be prohibited to interfere in the development process of this article.

sisodia

Mayo College

Since you are from Rajastan, can you please confirm whether the Princes' College in Ajmer is the same institution as the Mayo College. If yes, is the name Princes' college still used ? Thanks. Tintin 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin

Let me get back to you on this. Most likely they are the same. Raja's established four colleges for different regions of erstwhile kingdoms: Mayo,Indore, one in Gujarat and one more.

--DPSingh 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess the one in Gujarat is the Rajkumar College in Rajkot. Tintin 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my RfC

thank you, I am aware of it. After all, I had to take you by the hand and show you how to do it, because you are unwilling to read a single line of documentation. Have you read WP:5P yet? Get ready to read more, begin with Wikipedia:Arbitration. I am looking forward to seeing trolls and fools like you permabanned without so much decorum, you are really doing an excellent job in exposing WP's weakness. dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

DPSingh-ji, Can I request you to consider and endorse the Fresh start on Rajput please. I have talked to the people involved, and they have agreed to collaborate as well.

I would again like to draw your attention to Mahatma Gandhi, and the kind of information that is provided. My point is, if there is a varifiable source that has termed Gandhiji as a pro-muslim, it is cited there. This is the whole concept of NPOV that one must follow on Wikipedia. Hope you would consider this request and allow others to contribute their opnion as well. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 11:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for revert on Rajput

Please put your comments and reasons for the revert on the talk page Talk:Rajput. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 17:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 17:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parsees/Bahais

Yeah man, Parsees (Zoroastrians) live in Iran. They're called "Zartoshti", not Parsses, Parsees are the people that left for India after the Islamic invasion. around 70.000 or so (Not sure about the digit), they have a representative in Parlement and are accepted as "People of the Book", they have the right to study, go to work, etc. Same with Jews basically.

Bahais are another story, their religion is not recognized islamically and therefore some persecution has taken place, its usually because of their community, many of these Bahais left to foreign countries since they realize their religion will never be accepted and be integrated in the political system, wich is why Most have gone to Israel, Canada and the United States.--Paradoxic 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna

Dear Mr Singh, thankyou so much for your help with the Hare Krishna page - User:Dbachmann has really been causing problems in an unwarranted manner. When I saw your RFC it became apparent to me that he definitely has issues against Hinduism, and I believe he should not be Administrating such pages. You have my full support on bringing him to account. Sat Siri Akal !! Hare Krishna !! Your servant, Gouranga. (P.S - My accounts have now been blocked by Lupo) 86.136.95.138 14:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I disagree on the bases that this is being personal. Any contention needs to be issue-based and not person-based. Any objection needs to be backed up by valid references. I am sure you would feel highly insulted when someone calls you Hindu fanatic or something obscure like that. The best way to avaid it is not to begin with it.

In my opinion, blind opposition is not going to help anyone's cause. I am not advocating in favour of dab or anyone else here (though I have seen his constructive contribution to Upanishad, Purana and alike). My point is to appreciate the fact that the global perspective may not match with one's own local view all the time. Also, it will be wrong to judge a person based on his/her origin (examples are many, and I am sure that you know Max Muller was one of the best advocates for mahakavi Kalidasa, and was more literate on the subject than any of us. With that, he contributed to the world about Kalidasa and Sanskrit more than the rest). Hope you would consider, and help make this place worth a pride, with a better reflection of the heritage. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 14:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

"Raja you are a Suar ki aulad". Blocked for one week for that personal attack. Yes, I know what it means, I'm not stupid. Have fun on your own for one week. Fir e Fox 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comments posted by troll who got DPS blocked and then indulged in a disgusting show of making petty taunts about DPS inability to protect his own talk page. I shall act as the care taker of the User_talk:DPSingh in his absence.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reality is setting in, it seems Wikipedia is an Anti-Hindu, Anti-Buddhist site.Gorkhali 08:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DP Singhji (and others), may I suggest that you take a look at the contributions of Idleguy. He works in the Indo-Pak war sections which is a far more controversial area than Rajputs or numerals. His contributions in articles like the Kargil War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 are perfect examples of how to use the sources. He does tell the Indian side of the story but does it without losing any credibility. It is easy to blame everything on the system, but there is a lot that can be done within it and without losing the goodwill. Tintin Talk 15:25, 1 January 2006 (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 22:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just edited the article Rajput - you are not authorised to edit that page, if you edit it, you'll get blocked. Did you even read the decision? --Latinus 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I noticed you have been saying a few disparaging things in the edit summaries for Rajput. Please note that in edit summaries, as well as elsewhere, you must maintain a level of civility. joturner 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

DP singh, I agree with you. Every Hindu knows that a Rajput is a Hindu. There is no Muslim Rajput!

Raj2004 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for one year

Six arbitrators have voted on the following motion and all have supported it:

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

The motion is passed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]