Jump to content

User talk:DangalOh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, DangalOh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Kolkata rape case

[edit]

Hey, I saw that you reincluded few sections about the accusations. Please note that wikipedia is not a news article. Also, try to include the rebuttal by the government and the make sure that the section is not one sided. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in your talk page DangalOh (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from naming users on the edit summaries. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Wont do tht again DangalOh (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool🤝 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia guideline stating you to refrain from mentioning users in edit summaries. @VSankeerthSai1609, Please note that, as I have explained in my talk page. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald OK, noted VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Please take care not to make comments that could be construed as racist or sectarian. Even if that is not your intention any such comments can only cause you trouble that you can better do without. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never delete someone's reply to you. If I wanted to live a trouble-free life, I wouldn't be involved in topics like these where I know I don't have enough support for my point of view. DangalOh (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis

[edit]

Oh la la, you're following me diff? Do I have a fanbase? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha. I would say our interests are pretty aligned, and yes, if I had to choose any senior editor to follow, it would definitely be you. It’s extremely difficult to find people with the interests we share in today’s world. I always strive to maintain a proper balance and be fair to every human, regardless of their religious or political views, and I'm not afraid to share mine. I might have some biases towards certain cultures based on my understanding of their philosophies or scriptures, but I am always open to learning something new, adapting, and changing my worldview. I believe one should always be a seeker, never a blind believer. I like how you are bold in expressing both your critical and traditional views. I believe you can be reasoned with, which is why, even when I feel there might be a minor issue with your editing, I don’t hesitate to tell you, as I did earlier. But don’t worry, I have many other interests that might not overlap with yours, so I won’t be following you all the time :P. But yes, in this case, my blood boiled because I hate it when people disregard scholarship based on religion and have absolute disregard for philosophy, so I thought I’d give my two cents there. Hope you have a good time editing! DangalOh (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAF

[edit]

Since you appear to have an interest in the topic and probably come from a POV opposite mine, I will be interested in your views concerning our article on Hindu American Foundation. However, please read the article and the existent sourcing. And by "views", I mean views that can improve our article's compliance with encyclopedia policies. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this post because, honestly, I do not see any positive coverage of HAF in a long long time and thought you can help. Apart from Jeffery D. Long, I cannot locate a single reputable academic who is sympathetic to their activism. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TrangaBellam, Thank you for reaching out to me; I appreciate it a lot. However, I would rather stay away from topics that make me emotionally charged, and I know this might turn out to be one of those if I invest my time in it. Also, I don’t know much about the "HAF" and their motivations as of now. There is so much I want to say (not just about HAF, but in general). Before posting this reply, I actually wrote a 1,000-word paragraph (which I am infamous for and which doesn’t help much) explaining everything—my point of view, why I feel this way, etc. But then I deleted it because I guess Wikipedia is not the place for it. Here, I would say that if sources support negative views about them, then so be it. I won’t even go into the poor understanding that Western sources have regarding Indian religions. They see everything through their own exceptionally limited perspectives and motivations. I bet most Westerners think Indians or Hindus are poor, illogical, idiotic, uncivilized idol worshippers bound for hell, from a third-world country. And it’s not like our discussion will change their views on Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, or Hindu activism anytime soon. Whatever the sources support, although I can expand on some things by explaining them to you, I would rather refrain. These days, I am more focused on my own low-grade philosophy on Wikipedia. I want a little peace. I’m tired of fighting with everyone and everything.
Regards, DangalOh (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with disagreement (on the few specifics). And my offer also extends to Gyanvapi Mosque. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) But that is also a very charged topic. All I can say is don’t bash poor Sampath that hard. I laughed so much when I once saw him tweeting specifically about you. LOL. Give him a little benefit of the doubt, especially for criticizing assumptions made by other scholars and proposing his own assumptions and points, which are not verifiable with current evidence and might come across as partisan, but could very well be true. I wish you happy editing. You are a very intelligent editor. I’m confident we will cross paths often, as our interests align (not necessarily the POV). Thanks! :) DangalOh (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sampath is tweeting about me? Woah.
He, in all probabilities, has proficiency neither in Sanskrit nor Persian but wishes to work on medieval India. This means he can espouse nothing original except to rehash an eclectic collection of authors pandering to his POV — here, in this book, a couple of colonial authors, Sukul, and Moti Chandra. To compound issues, he has taken up the cudgels against "Western historians" and Wikipedia — even though discussing Bishan Singh's surveys and the tarahs would have fitted the theme of his book, he had to skip to not cite Desai; ditto for the Bhaideval temple inscription, which I had dug out from a very rarely held volume.
As to "proposing his own assumption and points", even if I excuse the outright farces about a mob assaulting the Laat by sneaking into the Gyanvapi or Tavernier describing the Vishweshwara or Chaukhandi being an Asokan structure, the scape is hardly better. Note the section on Shah Jahan/Kavindracharya — he is blissfully unaware that two of the eulogies in question have already been edited and published, relying on mss. from the Asiatic Library! This fact should have been evident at a cursory glance of the bibliography sections in relevant scholarship by Allison Busch, regardless of whether he agrees with her broader thesis. And, I am still not sure about how he (and Sukul) got the idea that Govindachandra worshipped at Vishweshwara’s shrine.
I wrote that section because I am sure that, in a year, there will be editors who will propose to include some random content from Sampath's book into the article! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! It's an old tweet: https://x.com/vikramsampath/status/1497892593752887296. However, I trust your knowledge in the Gyanvapi area. I just don’t trust some scholars whom you may consider more reliable (not talking about this topic, but in general). But hey, I have no comments about Sampath. I am not his fanboy, and I am not even very familiar with his work either. But as I said, I trust you in that regard. DangalOh (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I see. I do not even think highly of Truschke's book on Aurangzeb. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<3 :D And since you are so invested in Gyanvapi, I'll share with you one of my personal favorites that gives me peace and takes me closer to the Void. May it give you peace too:[1] DangalOh (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrations

[edit]

It's clear you're frustrated, but comments like a very vile bad faith editor known for pov pushing diff can be considered WP:PERSONALATTACK. Not the first time you do so; kindly request you to torture your walls instead (softly, without injuring yourself). Regards anyway; when you're not taken over by your frustrations you're a witty and entertaining commentator. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not frustration. Anger on you Joshua. But see krodha (anger) is my biggest sin. Cant get moksha in this life for sure. DangalOh (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had many plans to work with you on several topics that I know will intrigue you as well. I wanted to create many new pages in conjunction with you, but maybe we both are not ready to work together yet. DangalOh (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karma... So, we're tied-up and destined for future lives together? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that our relationship is karmic, transcending multiple lifetimes. I have known you in a previous existence, and I look forward to encountering you again in our next life... hehehe DangalOh (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangalOh&oldid=1250924997"