Internet Scholar

Archives Jan 2009

Saini

Tagging isn't necessarily constructive, but it does help point out problems. However, I'll gladly leave the tag off in favour of more substantive improvements. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless useful commentary is left on discussion page with suggestions to the author(s) of the article for improvement, tagging can be abused for vandalism. Without commentary there is no way to dishtinguish between the vandal and a sincere-intentioned editor. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sansi

Please include these additions with references. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Run it by one of the other more prolific editors there and see what he/she thinks? I think this is valid information with the references. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Saini

Hi, regarding your edits to Saini...apologies, my mistake- Fastily (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM ON PHULE PAGE

You'd better stop your vandalism. Your non-referenced changes will only get deleted. Keep your neo-Sikh views to yourself.

I have an article for you: http://www.hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=Sikhism_and_Hinduism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.248.217 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverse psychology is a bad tool. Whoever is vandalizing that article will be obvious to other editors. There is no point in getting worked up. It shows lack of neutrality. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ancient or medieval sources on Indian warfare?

Do you happen to know any Indian texts on ancient or medieval warfare, military manuals or relatively detailed descriptions of battles? Unfortunately, I have not come across such texts, so maybe you could help me there?

thanks in advance

GK1973 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is unabridged version of Mahabharata. For medieval Indian battlecraft, study the Shaster Vidya/Gatka of Sikhs who preserved Kshatriya/Rajput battlecraft although it exists in a very diluted form now as a sport. Here is a link: http://www.gatka.de/

Dhanurveda is another text describing different battle formation. Manusmriti might also have some diluted references.

Thanks --Internet Scholar (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

GK1973 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

intrigued!

well, it was in response to a message posted here on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics which I watch regularly and occasionally respond to. By the way, I dont need to be a History scholar to decide whether a theory you want to add here is fringe or not based on wikipedia guidleines. just common sense. good luck. --Like I Care 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and agree but be sure you have read wikiguidelines carefully. From the last message on the board it does not seem that you have read the notability guideline very well. I hope I am wrong but I have perceived an undue hostility and suspicion in your posts on that board. I am hoping I will be proven wrong soon on this.

Thanks--Internet Scholar (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi Internet Scholar
Are you also editing using this anonymous 122.162.205.102 ip as well ,
the edit history seems to suggest this ? Intothefire (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. You are definitely mistaken on this. I had reverted this particular edit that you have referenced though. Thanks--Internet Scholar (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Saini and Rajput

1st Question, are you in India ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan112 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Karan,

No. USA but widely travelled in India, Rajasthan and Punjab especially. Lets us remain civil and constructive in our exchanges. Regards.--Internet Scholar (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry sire but you are not being able to understand the situation. Sainis niether claim to be Rajputs and niether are they accepted as such. I can easily see that ur not ftom India otherwise you wud'nt have had this prob. ANd its better that you do not judge the Kind of "Rule" we had in the plains, since that is not the topic here. Karan112 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sainis have made the claims to Rajput identity all the way upto 1931 census after which caste based classifications were discontinued by government of India. Otherwise Saini Rajput Mahasabha would not have been formed in 1920 to correct distortions of 1881 census. Sainis have always held that the relocated from Mathura after Gazni sacked this city and their kingdom was destoyed by invading Turks. This belief has always been part of their folk memory and is also suggested by "Shoorsaini" name which maps to the name of pre-Islamic Yadava kingdom of Mathura. This is also proven by the common clan names of Meos (Jaduvansi Muslim Rajputs of Mewat)and Doaba Sainis. Demrait, Mangar, etc sub clan names are shared with Mewati Jaduvanshi Rajputs who were left behind and converted to Islam. I take it you have a lot of pride in your identity but do not seek to undermine the history of other groups who take a similar pride in their own. When one is not familar with textual sources, added caution in making attacks and claims is useful. I suggest you heed this advice and stay constructive. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, please dont offer advice, 2nd i have repeated that you write that they Claim Rajput Descent and at a time their ancestor might have been a Rajput but as it is neither do they marry amongst any Rajputs and are niether accepted as such. I may form the St Thomas Rajput Mahasabha, doesnt prove anything. Karan112 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG! ur page says ur intd in Rajput history, please spare us. Sapre us from the wrath of American Intelligence in Indian Affairs.

Kindly discuss

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Internet Scholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

blocked without warning. Excessive penalizing without discussion. The user is relatively new to Wikipedia. We can resolve this through discussion. Thanks.

Decline reason:

See User:Internet_Scholar for details of your block. Note, there are no warnings given before blocking due to abusing multiple accounts.

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Internet Scholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello Todds and Yellomonkey. I am relatively new to wiki and still learning my way around here. I admit that I am Satyashodak and am willing to make full disclosure on every single page or article that I have edited. I have never edited the same article with more than one user names or used it manipulate to opinions. The main reason for the use of alternate login was to prevent retaliatory tagging and vandalism on the articles of my main focus. Sometimes we have different priorities and end up using diffent screen names to engage on a particular topic in a limited way without intending to manipulate opinion of consensus. However, kindly assume good faith. In case I have offended anybody, I will go and aplogize and give you commitment that I will never edit wikipedia with more than one screen name. Kindly allow me to discuss this issue with you ...so that I may take corrective action for the future. Regards,

Decline reason:

From your request, it sounds as if you intended this account to be half of a good hand, bad hand pair of accounts. Sorry, but that is not acceptable. —Travis^talk 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Internet Scholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry if this is your perception but this case does not apply to me. I have never edited the same article with the different screen names...so the good hand and bad hand descriptive cannot be applied to my usage if you see my usage pattern on all the accounts. I joined wikipedia on in August 2008 and was still learning about participation rules here. Given the fact that I have expressed regrets and shown complete willingness to make amends, I believe you could afford a little leniency even if your perception of my conduct appeares to be otherwise. I give you a solemn commitment never to use alternate account even for legitimate purpose. In addition to this I will go on all the articles and make complete disclusure of the alternate identity that I have used . Would this satisfy you? I think I am coming totally clean and honest and you could certainly afford to give a second chance to the sincerely penitent. Both I and wikipedia have a lot to benefit from each other. Kindly assume good faith here. Please reconsider the ban or atleast give me sufficient means to communicate with Yellowmonkey and other esteemed admins to clear this mess. Regards. Internet Scholar.

Decline reason:

If you haven't been editing with different names, per the conversation below, who exactly has been requesting moderation at Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism? User:Satyashodak has been arguing on the talk page. You don't get to use one account to start discussions and another one to edit war. You've had enough discussions here. Go back to User:Satyashodak and edit there. You should have been punished there and using a second account to get around it is just ridiculous. In fact, I'm protecting you from this page since it's clear you are no reason to be unblocked here. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It should be noted that the other account has been used for edit-warring, vandalism, and personal attacks: for a recent example of the first two see [1], , for personal attacks see [2], [3], [4]. Other recent edits are similar. Mitsube (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is patently wrong. The content dispute on that page is being branded as vandalism. I have requested moderation on that page for months. All the logs can be seen. This individual Mitsube himself has been accused of all the things he is accusing others of. The opinions of other editors who have been victimised by him can be seen. In any case it was a content dispute, not vandalism because adequate commentary has been left on the Discussion page for months with no action being taken to moderate that article used for vicious propaganda against Hindu textual sources. I have never posted on the same article using more than one login , except only once when I had forgotten my password. I have not violated any Wiki policy on sockpuppet issue. I hope the editors will see the past track record of Mitsube and see his accusation in the proper context. What is going on the Hinduism and Buddhism article is a content dispute , not vandalism.--Internet Scholar (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith on the part of the editor who put my account on block. I have not violated any of the policies given on the following guideline about sockpuppets:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK

When somebody is showing will and eageness to correct perceived violation of any rule. I think some leniency and benefit of doubt are in order. If I have inadvertently broken any rule, I stand corrected but if the editors see my editing history on all of my accounts , they would be able to see that I have shown full respect to Wikipedia guidelines in letter and spirit. I hope good faith will be assumed and Yellowmonkey or some other administrator will open a channel of communicaiton to resolve this issue. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing 14,000 bytes of sourced content four times in an hour and a half, accompanied by personal attacks on two of the three editors who tried to stop you, is just what I said. Your other edits with that account also have misleading edit summaries and you remove large amounts of sourced content with no justification. Mitsube (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Mitsube you are too involved in the content dispute to give any objective testimony about my usage. I did not remove the content but refereshed it to earlier state and was progressively restoring the content of other neutral editors. Other editors can review all the usage and make their own judgement. Go and review your own usage page first. It is more than obvious you have been involved with these disputes with a lot of other editors as well who have questioned your lack of neutrality and editing style more than a few times. Leave aside "personal attack", you accuse any editor who tries to restore balance to that article as "Hindu fundamentalist"...isn't that an attack? In any case there is always a system of gradual escalation of cautioning , warning etc and explanation before somebody is banned outrightly from editing. I was banned without given an opportunity to explain my edits and usage. Don't you think this is is bit excessive, especially since I have already shown willingness to go with the rules of wikipedia? Again, I don't expect you to be objective in your response given the fact that you are an involved editor. So kindly don't meddle in this issue before a more distanced neutral editor takes a look at this issue. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider making statements like "I did not remove the content". Also if you would kindly remind me where I used the phrase "Hindu fundamentalist" I would appreciate it. I may have used it to describe a position on an issue but I do not recall doing so. Mitsube (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jasbir Singh Saini Chair

The article Jasbir Singh Saini Chair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable--unless all endowed chairs at major universities are?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Indianorderofmerit1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Indianorderofmerit1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Russian Cross St George 1st & 2nd class.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Russian Cross St George 1st & 2nd class.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)