User talk:Rosamaple

Welcome!

Hello, Rosamaple, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --D-Boy 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since in your sixth edit to Wikipedia ever, you accuse my edits of showing a "devious pattern", I presume you are either a sockpuppet of an established editor, or you were sent here by a mailing list (which we would classify as "meatpuppet"). I take the liberty of tagging your userpage. If you want to argue that you are unrelated to any pre-existing account, feel free to state this publicly and unequivocally and remove the sock template. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification. If you are not a sockpuppet, seeing that I have reverted a single one of your edits, how can you claim I am "constantly" reverting you? Also, note that I am not German (although it wouldn't be relevant in any way if I were). Also, I never claimed Aditya Prakashan publishes propaganda exclusively: the article states up front that they have published many general Indologist works. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bachmann

Where have I alleged that you are 'constantly' reverting 'me'? At most, I have alleged that I do see a devious pattern in your edits, which revert not just mine but anyone else's that reflect poorly on Michael Witzel, and which contradict his views. Now, there is scathing criticism of his tactics and views in scholarly journals, but if I start reproducing them under the 'Criticism' section on Michael Witzel page, I am sure you will axe them. I repeat, that you are relying on one sided and prejudiced sources such as Michael Witzel and Frontline to create patently one-sided pages. If I am correcting some errors, these corrections are based on my personal acquaintance with the Voice of India publishers, and I knew for a fact that Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup held Hindu Nationalism in utter contempt and that the former's writings were proscribed in the part journals of Hindu nationalists. It is only much later, when the RSS grudgingly started acknowleding their use, though Sita Ram Goel held them in utter contempt till his death. It might serve Witzel's polemical purposes to write false and half true things in his acerbic writings, but at least you should be more open minded. It is OK if you disagree with me, but I reject pre-emptively any such allegations that my views or those of others when they happen to coincide with mine must necessarily be linked to Hindu Nationalism. This is a very simplistic and naive way of looking at things.

"Dbachmann is constantly vandalizing my edits".

as for "Now, there is scathing criticism of his tactics and views in scholarly journals, but if I start reproducing them under the 'Criticism' section on Michael Witzel page, I am sure you will axe them.", not at all, I beg you to cite "scholarly journals". I will "axe" everything except your esteemed quotations of scholarly journals. I do not "disagree" with you, I am trying to research this topic, and I will thank you if you point me to (academic!) sources I have missed. Frontline, as it happens, has interviewed both Rajaram and his critics, so it can hardly be said that they were unfairly biased. thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response-2

Oh, so that is where you got it from. But you did revert my edits at the Voice of India page several times, although I do admit that my sweeping generalization could have been a bit too harsh.

OK, then, I will dig out published criticism of Witzel and see whether it stays on there. BTW, in the past, I have been informed that you have allowed Witzel to edit his own page.

I reiterate that you must not axe or revert edits that give a more nuanced view rather than the prejudiced view of a particular critic at Harvard.

you mean, published in "scholarly journals", not merely "published". By your own admission, you clearly have a vested interest in this topic, and I would ask you to cite sources for each of your edits. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response-3

Dear Dbachmann, You are being combative unnecessarily. Yes, I will reference my citations of criticism of Witzel with biblographic information. On the other hand, you must verify allegations made by second-hand hostile sources such as Witzel by finding out from first hand sources. To allege for instance that B B Lal, the doyen of Indian archaeology, is a Hindu nationalist (as done by Witzel) is actually calumny and reckless slander. Just because Witzel is a Harvard scholar does not impart infallibility to whatever he writes. Please do not propagate such extreme and false views. Have you ever even met Lal? Everyone is not motivated by religious nationalism.

Vested interest

I just noticed your additional allegation of vested interest. Are you claiming that you have absolutely no vested interest? I am trying to remove factual errors, and it is rather pedantic to allege that doing so amounts to vested interest! Just because I am correcting information about some people I happened to know does not mean that I discard my objectivity and lavish praise on them. One could then very well allege that since you admire Witzel's publications, you have a vested interest in editing anything that even remotely relate to him! I suggest that we do not waste time on this useless banter, and I have to leave now to teach a class. Let us focus on making Wikipedia more inclusive and factually correct.

Mr. Agarwal, Wikipedia generally discourages self-citation. However, I think there is nothing wrong with you citing your own articles, as long as they were published in peer-reviewed literature. I will be grateful if you do, even, since it will be a huge step forward compared to the usual blog-postings we are served in "support" of the Hindutva position. The "vested interest" refers to your own article, and because of your association with the firm, to Voice of India. Wikipedia will not feature biographical articles on anyone who was ever interviewed in a newspaper or published a few articles. We have clear guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia as a rule does only articles on "academics" if they are tenured, have honorary degrees, or in rare cases on PhD'd scholars with prolific output. Vishal Agarwal falls clearly short of any of this, and notability would have to be argued on grounds of being a "media person" with "wide name recognition" or similar. Compare N. S. Rajaram, who of borderline notability, and can arguably be included as notable since Alan Sokal and other academics have discussed the author as a notable case of pseudo-scholarly propaganda. dab (𒁳) 07:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, I hardly start editing this online resource and have not even made up my intro account that I am faced with your accusations and allegations that become more and more bizarre. No evidence emerges from your end. Is this the way senior Wiki editors behave? No wonder then you folks are faced with so many lawsuits. You allege that I am Hkelkar, then you allege that I have 'admitted' to a 'relationship' with voice of india just because I said that I know Goel who ran it. But my personal knowledge of him is restricted to a phone call that I had with him a decade ago when I went to their shop to buy some books and the person there put him on line with Goel who happened to call right then. Then I am alleged to be Mr Agarwal. And then it is alleged that I am supporting Hindutva. And then a most gratuituous reference is made to Rajaram as if I am supposed to defend him. And then you threaten to axe a page that I do not know who created. By all means axe it because it will make your hero Witzel look nicer. I dont care. Like I said, notability of Agarwal can be questioned certainly on 'other' grounds. You should actually thank me for correcting your factual errors that are based on prejudiced second hand sources if you are really interested in making this online encyclo a valuable resource. But it appears that you do not want to deal with issues academically and would instead launch personal attacks at others under the delusion that you are leading some holy crusade against religious nationalists. To me it appears just a manifestation of the delusion that some whites have that they have transcended racism, and therefore their scholarship is value free and objective but that others must always have some parochial agenda. I would urge you to deal with issues in a factual manner. Instead of indulging in online intimidation and propaganda. We should all be committed to making Wiki a good source of reliable information. Do not act as a mouthpiece of people who mix scholarship with pathetic politics.

indeed. That's why I asked you to provide references for your edits. The people who "mix scholarship with pathetic politics" are Voice of India (off-wiki) and assorted sock artists (on-wiki), and I am doing what I can to prevent their undermining Wikipedia. You are welcome to help. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosamaple 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)I have been checking out the history of your edits to Wiki and am becoming more and more disturbed. I hope you do not employ underhanded tactics to defend your idols to an unreasonable extent. I am willing to struggle with you.[reply]

I am not willing to "struggle" with you. I am being badmouthed by extremist editors for protecting Wikipedia policy, also against their agenda, that's as far as it goes. If you respect policy, we will have no "struggle". You will note that my actions have so far been fully backed up by the community. I have a clean block log, no WP:RfAr pushed against me by the trolls was even heard, and such WP:RfCs as there were have been resoundingly turned down as bad faith fabrications by uninvolved community members. If you want to allege bad faith or bias on my part, you have a difficult case indeed. Better denounce Wikipedia as a whole (and me for subscribing to its principles) and leave it at that. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to referenced content

Namaste. I reverted your changes on Vedas because both of your edits made changes to text that had been specifically referenced. Your changes may have been correct, but they were not referenced, and making them in that way would have applied the existing references to statments they did not support. Please do not hesitate to raise your points again on the talk page if you wish to collaborate on finding additional references. We must cite WP:RS for all statements. Buddhipriya 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhipriya, Namaste! I agree to your decisions. We can surely collaborate in locating references to material related to Hinduism, India, history and so on. [1]

When you add remarks to your talk page, be sure to type four tildes ~~~~ in order to provide a signature and time stamp. Currently it is very difficult to keep track of who is saying what unless the history is checked. Buddhipriya 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]