User talk:Vinay Jha

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

We 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 or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Jha, I've blocked the account you don't want and made the user and user talk pages redirect here instead. That's about the most I can offer. We can't actually delete accounts here. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Hinduism, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your edit before reverting it. Let me explain. As you admitted on my talk page, the equations are unnecessary detail. The stuff about 'trepidation' needs a source; I've never heard of it. Nutation is already mentioned above and doesn't need to be discussed further in this article. The paragraph about 'Milankovitz' (sic; the standard spelling is Milankovitch cycles) cycles doesn't seems encyclopedic at all. Overall I didn't see anything useful in your contribution. The way, the truth, and the light 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments at my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare 03:53, 05 january

2014 (UTC)

I am trying to add additional citations to some of the material that you have added to Svadhyaya. The version of the Amarakośa that I use is online at: [[1]]. It uses a sequential numbering system. Can you assist me by providing the entry numbers that correspond to 2.7.45-46 in the version I am using? Thanks for your help. Buddhipriya 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that we use the talk page for whatever article we are working on as the place to put messages that pertain to that article. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and we can benefit from having other editors help with each article. The concept of WP:OWN has developed to try to formally state the obvious, which is that anything either of us adds is subject to removal or change by anyone else. In such an environment, forming supportive working relationships with valued colleagues is perhaps the only way to survive in the long run. So please participate on the talk page for Svadhyaya for issues that pertain to that article. Some of the basic sourcing issues may take some time to work out, but if we try to collaborate I am sure I will gain much knowledge from you. Buddhipriya 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The online version of Amarkosha you use (http://sanskritdocuments.org/ ) has been compiled by a careless person. In it, fourth subsection of second chapter correctly ends at line 2.4.436 which is end of Vanaushadhi-varga. Next Varga is correctly named Simhādi-varga, and its first line ought to be numbered as 2.5.437, but unfortunately, the varga-number of previous varga was carelessly copied by the compiler and therefore 2.5.437 was numbered as 2.4.437. As a result, all subsequent line numbers have one less in varga-number (the middle number. Therefore, 2.7 is wrongly given as 2.6 in the online version. You will find Svādhyāya in this online version at line number 2.6.908 (which ought to have been numbered 2.7.908), and aghmarshana is mentioned in the next line. I have mentioned a more useful printed version in the reference of Svadhyaya. This printed version has a Hindi commentary by a very good scholar which will help anyone immensely to master Sanskrit language. If you devote a few days on the DESIGN of Amarkosha, you will find that its order is far more scientific for a suffixional language like Sanskrit (like all IE languages) than an artificial alphabetical order used by modern lexicographers. Monier Williams was planning to redesign his great dictionary according to scientific principles of Sanskrit grammar, but unfortunately he died before he could fulfill this great vision. Ask the compilers of sanskritdocuments.org to rectify the line numbering of Amarkosha. The line numbering system employed by the version I quote from is better and should be followed by these online compilers. Moreover, these online compilers have omitted shloka-number and used line-number instead (each shloka has two lines in amarkosha), which vastly reduces the value of their efforts, because you must quote shloka number and not line number. But in this online version, you will find it hard to determine where a shloka begins or ends ! Vinay Jha 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

utcursch | talk 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid editing active discussions on talk pages as you did here: [2]. Such changes make it more difficult for editors to keep a running track of what is happening. We are not engaged in a one-to-one conversation, and many other editors may be silently monitoring our work, entering only if they see something that concerns them. Some editors will check this page once in a month. Keeping a running series of conversations is part of the audit trail for Wikipedia. There can be times when editing a finished conversation from the past is useful. That is called "refactoring" and Abcedare did it because the material was old. The current material should not be refactored daily because that makes group participation in the article more difficult. I see that you are getting into the spirit of sourcing, and over the next month we can solve all of the questions about sources, I am sure. Buddhipriya 02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Maithil Brāhamana, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/maithili.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had merely redirected an old Wiki article to a new one because the title of old article was wrong. It seems the contents of old article had something in common with the website reffered to above. I did not create that page within or outside Wiki. But now I have rectified this situation and placed relevant information on the talk page. - Vinay Jha 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Maithili Brahmins. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Abecedare 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments at my talk page. Abecedare 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to want to enter into the "Indigenous Aryans" debate, I should point out that the long history of Hindutva attempts to subvert Wikipedia, and the fact that they have not succeeded. There have been two arbitration cases,

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

The history of the debate is at

• Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)
• Talk:Indigenous Aryans (India)
• Talk:Out of India theory

and archives. Before you begin arguing in a similar vein, you should be aware of what has been discussed before. I respect your contributions as a Sanskrit scholar, but if you're going to push ideological points, you would do well to recognize that very dedicated people have attempted this before you, and have failed. Based on Wikipedia policy, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, there is simply no way to present an opinion as mainstream, when in fact it isn't, no matter how much you would like to. dab (𒁳) 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible connection between names in the Bantu languages of East Africa and words or names in Sanskrit. The Bantu languages originated in West Africa, in the region where the state of Cameroon now is, and spread to the east and south. They did not reach East Africa until the middle centuries of the first millennium CE. At no point in their spread did they have contacts with speakers of Indo-Iranian or even Indo-European languages. There were some contacts between East African Bantu languages, especially Swahili (the trade language of the east coast of Africa) and Indo-Iranian languages (particularly Persian) later on, due to trade across the Indian Ocean. The primary exterior influence on the Bantu languages of East Africa after that time was, however, Arabic.

I am afraid I cannot concur with your theory that Mount Meru is based on a mountain in East Africa. My own theory is that it is based upon a high mountain in the western Pamir region which forms a geographical pivot for the dispersal of the Indo-Iranian speaking peoples. However, as I cannot demonstrate this interesting theory except through original research, I refrain from placing it on Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same. RandomCritic 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am unfortunate that you misinterpreted my ideas. Whatever I contributed to Indian astronomy was based upon well established sources. For instance, Mt Meru on equator is not my theory but based upon ancient texts, eg. Surya Siddānta: Bhoogolādhyāya:34-48 (Burgess)."

You mean your interpretation of those texts. Interpretation still constitutes original research. You are also quite mistaken as to the basis of my idea, and it's quite presumptuous of you to claim to know what it's based on without asking me. It has nothing to do with Kashmir at all. RandomCritic 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated what I had heard from others about Pamir and and Kashmir long ago; I did not say Kashmir &c was your theory. As far as my contributions to 'Indian Astronomy',I never said my interpretation. Read my contributions again, I have cited 17 references in just one section 'Merucentricism' and if you pay attention to facts cited you will find that I can manage hundreds of additional citations for whatever I have stated there. Still you call it my theory because you want to invoke original research against me. If you are determined to invoke original research, I cannot prevent you. But you must ponder over just three citations :(1)"the central point of Jambudvipa ; all the planets revolve round it"(-Monier-Williams). (2)G.Thibat's translation of Varah Mihir : "The sun when at the equinoctial point revolves round so much (3200 yojanas) of the earth from Meru as centre", and (3)Thibaut's personal comment interpreting "Meru as pole". Thibaut accurately translated the text Meru-madhya as "Meru as centre" but wrongly interpreted that pole is the centre of earth or of sun's orbit. If this centre is assumed to be earth's centre at the core, it is just not possible because Meru lies on a continent Jamboodvip (already cited) and a continent cannot be within the earth. Is it my Original Resarch ? You are a rational person ; please do not distort fact. I agree with the idea that Meru forms a geographical pivot for the dispersal of all peoples of the earth, and again it is is not my theory, but the finding of scientists. Humans originated around Meru 4 million years ago. Pamir was possibly named ParoMeru (during Alexander's times, Paro was prefixed to mountains in West India, cf. 'Ta Indika') from which ParoMeru >Pameru> Pamir might have been derived. But Wiki will never accept such ideas, although I have no personal objection. Pamir is the origin of many great mountains but not of any major branch of humans : it is highly inhospitable. -Vinay Jha 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the Rigveda article, so don't have any specific views on the content of the dispute itself but I have replied to your message on my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare 01:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my reply to your latest comment on my talk page. Abecedare 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayji, I am not a scholar as you are. Kindly let me the know following, so I have a better perception on all these matters with regards to the dating of the Vedas.

From what I've recently studied, I come to know the following.

• The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid, the reason I feel the same is because, not all the 4 vedas are very much inline. That is not all say the same. So, it is quiet possible that there should have been disregards about issues and it is probably changed. Again two different Yajur Vedas. Again it is quiet possible that 1 sect of Hindu Pandits hear a part of the Version and the other Hindu Pandits heard the other remaining parts of the Yajur Veda.)
• The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions.
• During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone.

So, what are all the

• current findings based on??
• what are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same.
• which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune. BalanceRestored 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted another question about the Difference of opinion in the 4 Vedas. Eg. Origin etc. BalanceRestored 10:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[moved from Talk:Rigveda dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ][reply]

Vinayji, I am not a scholar as you are. Kindly let me the know following, so I have a better perception on all these matters with regards to the dating of the Vedas.

From what I've recently studied, I come to know the following.

• The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid)
• The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions.
• During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone.

So, what are all the

• current findings based on??
• what are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same.
• which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune. BalanceRestored 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked intricate questions, and even summarised answer will be lengthy, which I am here providing :

(I have once referred to my own research in the following , but whatever I have stated there is based upon facts and sources and I have not even mentioned the findings of my own research. I have no intention to publish my research anywhere.)

(1)Question : "The Vedas are possibly changed. (With regards to it's authenticity there's noting very solid)". Answer : The Vedas were written down for the first time at the end of first millenium AD, when scholars anticipated a decrease in the willingness to preserve the Vedas as Shruti alone. But the content of all the Vedas had been exactly fixed during the Vedic period itself by means of ANUKRAMANIKĀ which listed all verses in proper order. ANUKRAMANIKĀ cannot be challenged as far as their authenticity is concerned; they are referenced in ancient texts. Hence if you have read somewhere that the "The Vedas are possibly changed", the author is certainly distorting facts so as to push some personal agenda or hypothesis.

(2)Question :"The meaning of words that we interpret today could be changed, with regards to certain words today, and what used to before could be different. That means, we could be misinterpreting the words and hence arriving at wrong conclusions." Answer : Meaning change within short spans. In Sanskrit, sambhrānta means a 'completely confused or mad person', but in Hindi it means 'a cultured and respected person'. In English, 'delight' originally meany 'away from light' which gave rise to the modern meaning of 'sensory pleasure' because 'enlight-enment required austerities which were disliked by the philistine majority in real life. Hence, the only proper means to get the meaning of any ancient or modern text is its proper context and milieu. Mahābhārata contains verses which lie side by side but were composed with a mutual difference of millenia. Such verses can be properly recognized and interpreted only by judging them against the social-econonomic-political-religious milieu to which their content might belong.

(3) Question : "During the course of time, rivers have disappeared. So, manuscripts, writing on rocks should have also gone." Answer : Few rivers disappear totally. Sarasvati is the sole exception among major rivers. But the major problem of alluvial regions is that these plains are formed by alluviua brought by rivers which constantly shift courses as a result of their own silts and destroy sites. It is not possible to excavate more than one thousand years of continuous settlement in the Gangetic valley (an average, based upon examination of excavation reports of Archaeological Survey of India). We normally find ancient remains of Buddhist period only at those sites which had beed abandoned around 600 AD (end of Second Urbaisation in India). Most of settlements in Gangetic valley have unbroken continuity, and therefore everything before nearly 1000 AD lies submerged in groundwater. Only 30 layers at Mohenjodaro could be excavated, 39 lie submerged, although Mohenjodaro is away from river and lies in a region of scanty rainfall. Same is the case with most of the ancient sites of Sumer and Egypt also. Gangetic valley becomes almost a sea during monsoons when groundwater level also rises. Hence, it does not show ancient remains, although all ancient texts refer to it as the nucleus of India's population. Mostly, summarised reports of excavations are misleading because they state that a particular site yielded 'XYZ-items' during 'ABC-period', but fail to mention that groundwater prevented further excavations; hence, historians relying upon secondary sources assume that this site did not exist before 'ABC-period'. Personal examination of excavation reports of a sufficiently large number of sites has convinced me that an overwhelming majority of historians are not ready to invest enough time and labour in getting to the truth and are only interested in mass production of research papers and books by quoting each other; this method is a shortcut to gain academic recognition. Heavy rains and groundwater has destroyed almost the whole prehistory of Central Africa where mankind evolved, as well as of Gangetic Valley which produced a vast literature whose archaological context has nearly (not totally) vanished. Sumer, Egypt, Harappa are dry areas, hence remains were preserved even in riparian belts. There are C-14 dated findings at many sites in the Gangetic Vally which prove settlements nearabout or even prior to 3000 BCE, but mainstream historians explain away such findings as exceptions or results of imagined earthquakes and do not even mention them in books and journals because of a fear of backlash from the Aryan Invasion Theorists. Opinions of topmost archaelogists who carry out these excavations do not find a mention in 'mainstream' textbooks. Scientific examination of human remains in Europe and India has proven that no migration took place either way after 3000 BCE. Hence, even if any migration occurred, it must have happened before 3000 BCE. Linear-B has demolished the linguistic foundation on whose basis Rgvedic dating of 1500 BCE was postulated (explained below). But there is a strong "mainstream" lobby which refuses to listen anything and resorts to personal attacks, abuses, etc. instead of discussing the problems in a neutral and scholarly manner, and brands every critic as an obscurantist or a lunatic. If you prepare a list of places, rivers, states, towns, etc. mentioned in the Rgveda from primary source (taking help from secondary sources but with caution), you will also be branded as a Hindutva mystic, and experts like Witzel will blacklist you for conducting such a researches, because a thorough and neutral research demolishes the theories which they have have preached all along. See the threats DAB has issued to me (under ' Precedents' on my talk page) as a result of certain points I raised concerning the dating of Rgveda in the Talk:Rgveda.

(4)Question : "So, what are all the current findings based on?? ". Answer : Current findings ('opinions' will be a better word instead of 'findings') regarding the dating of Rgveda are based on A. Kaegi's ideas in Germany, who was a historian in 19th century and not a linguist. Max Müller popularised this dating in the name of 'linguistic evidence'. I also believed in these views, till I studied the great German masterpieces on Indo-European linguistics. Facts were meticulouslu gathered and analysed, but mostly, facts were suppressed in the name of "academic consensus". I am giving an instance. According to tree model in Indo-Europeanism, European languages were divided into two great branches : North (Slavo-Germanic) and South (Kelt-Italic-Greek). Both these branches showed greater affinities to Sanskrit than to each other. A natural conclusion was that India was the homeland. But India was a non-white and slave country. Hence, Central Asia was declared to be the homeland, although Central Asia had not yielded any trace of either linguistic or archaeological connection with IE family in 19-th century. Genuine voices were drowned in the name of consensus among Indo-Europeanists. It was a heyday for German nationalism. A few decades later, one linguistic affinity was discovered between Keltic and Teutonic, and the former Tree model was instantly with a Ring Model, in which India got a place at the far eastern periphery and the centre of this ring lied somewhere around Slovakia. This model is being followed even today. A single linguistic affinity between Keltic and Teutonic was sufficient for deducing such important conclusions ! Unfortunately, historical linguistics is a highly technical subject and there are hardly any genuine experts today. Most of the 'experts' are making a mockery of the field. Descriptive Linguistics has made great theoretical and empirical advances in the 20th century, but whenever its scientific methods are used for IE, a great hue and cry is raised agaist 'invasions by lunatics, obscurantists,etc'. It took me 12 years of painstaking research along the principles of modern linguistics to get to the truth, which I decided not to publish, because it was a vast and technical work which few will understand and many will abuse. I did not even make a fair copy out of my rough versions (I have no plan to put my findings in Wiki hence DAB should nor cry out OR/NOR, because I decided over a decade ago that I will not publish my work). If you want proof of the fact that the method of 19th century linguists was unscientific, read the initial chapter of Leonard Bloomfield's famous textbook 'Language'. Unfortunately, he criticised the method of his predecessors in short but instead of showing a new path he asked linguists to leave this field and himself repeated the conclusions of old linguists in his book ! This is the "mainstram" of DAB, and it is not a fault of DAB.

(5)Question : "What are the instruments used to figure out the dating, so that I can study the precision of the same." Answer : Chief reasons behind dating the Rgveda to 1500-1200 BC were never clearly stated by any principal linguist, but it was based upon following premises :(1) Rgvedic community was assumed to be largely pastoral (forgetting the fact that an overwhelming majority of Brahmanas despised urban life till modern times, when Permanent Settlement of Lord Cornwallis destroyed the very basis of their life), (2) earlist historically attestable event of Europe was the Battle of Troy, which was fought by those Greeks who could be placed at par with the pastoral Vedic people in level of material culture, (3) Rgveda belonged to same stock to which Greek belonged, and therefore the bulk of Rgveda must have belonged to cir.1200 BC. This line of reasoning was apparently reasonable and convincing, and was adopted by a majority of educated Indians as well.

In 1952, Ventris (cf. above for reliable reference) deciphered Linear-B which proved that Mycenaenian Greeks enjoyed developed civic life upto 1450 BC. Hence, pastoral predecessors of these Greeks must have existed around 2000 BC. But there was a developed urban culture in Indus Valley around 2000 BC. Hence Rgveda had to be placed well before the beginings of urbanisation in the Indus Valley, ie, before 3000 BC. This date was unacceptable to Eurocentricists. Hence, 1500-1200 BC is being publicised as an established linguistic fact and all attempts to investigate this question is being dogmatically opposed.

(6)Question : "which copies of the Veda are currently there at Bhandarkar pune." Answer :"There are manuscripts outside Bhandarkar Institute also, and all the extant manuscripts of RV in the world together with explanatory notes have been published by Vaidika Samshodana Mandala of Pune (it has been reprinted in France as well). See Talk:Svadhyaya for details. -Vinay Jha 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not myself like the way Dab deletes, but WP:TALK can be used only to discuss adjustments to the main article using WP:V articles. Well, dab could have explained the same. But he is very careless. BalanceRestored 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to write your views at my talk page, or your own. I've add your talk page in my watch list, so, when ever you will make a change to your talk page, I will know about the same.BalanceRestored 11:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you please stop shopping on admin talkpages with claims that I "abuse" you? It is you who is abusing Wikipedia by filling pages and pages with general musings and personal opinions. This is not what Wikipedia is for, alright? If you have a source to cite, cite it briefly and to the point, and if you don't, feel free to keep the talkpages clean for people who do. This holds for everybody. It doesn't matter who you are. Even Vishvamitra himself if he edited Wikipedia would face sanctions if he failed to respect the rules. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On talk pages, please use 4 tildes (~~~~) after your comments. When you save the page, the tildes will be automatically converted to a link to your user page and the date and time the comment was left. Thanks! Samuel Grant 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you will remain that way until you retract the legal threat you made against Dbachmann. We do not tolerate that form of bullying. Moreschi ^Talk 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email, and all issues of disagreements between you and other editors (which I haven't taken a look at) aside, I find your assigning racial motives to editors you are in dispute with to be unworthy of you, if not outright despicable.
If you decide to request an unblock, you can see the instructions at WP:APB and also read WP:LEGAL. FYI the block review request will be handled by an independent administrator, and not Moreschi. Abecedare 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinay, I recently appealed that you be given a second chance after your leagal threat, and even posted an unblock request on your behalf. However the first edits you made after being unblocked were:

• Reverted Dab's correct edit which (1) consolidated all the dating refs in one place and (2) made sure that the lead matched the article.
• Placed a talk page comment which was both uncivil, assumed bad faith and attacked a user rather than address the content (example: "which shows he is really not interested in studying the sources and is befooling everyone in Wiki by writing falsely sourced articles to impress others with his dab-ness", "Had DAB read Max Maxmüller ...", as well as this edit)

Such tendentious behaviour is not well regarded on wikipedia, and I am afraid that if you don't mend your actions they will sooner-or-later lead to you being blocked from editing here. I therefore advice you to revert your edit on Rigveda and edit your remarks on the talk page. I hope I will not have to regret having spoken up for you. Regards. Abecedare 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. your behaviour is deteriorating. You refuse to listen to friendly advice, you are incapable of going back on your actions, and you still fail to respect the purpose and rules of Wikipedia. In short, your behaviour is that of a spoilt child that for once didn't get its way. I don't have time or motivation to prance around with you like that, and you will have no joy, and no effect on Wikipedia if you don't reconsider your approach. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To DAB : I have a long list of your "friendly advices" of leaving Wiki, opening my own website, etc . I have a list of your flaunting the rules of Wikipedia (eg, abusing me personally, your OR, POV, unsourced matter, etc), and I understand what your threat above means "you will have no joy, and no effect on Wikipedia" : it clearly implies that you will try your best to give me "no joy" and my works will be wiped out by you. Even my students occupy superior academic posts, but you are abusing me again as "a spoilt child". Indeed, your behaviour is deteriorating. The problem here is rooted in your rude and offensive language. All disputes can be solved if people observe WP:CIVIL . Had you a slightest respect for Wiki's policies, you would have apprediated my imrovements to Rgveda today, in which I corrected many factual errors in statements and sourcing (without any motive against you, believe me). Had I erred, you would have named my errors, which I would have mended gladly. You are angry because you cannot point out a single error in my edits. Had you waited for a day or two, your misgigivings would have evaporated, but you have no patience. -Vinay Jha 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only person who has given you advice, and before you started your nonsensical campaign, I was as friendly as anyone. I don't want to discuss this further. There are many Wikipedians, and if you are willing to take advice, you have a large choice of possible mentors. I won't even begin discussing questions of encyclopedic style or formatting. If you want to learn, ask other editors. If you don't want to learn, you'll have to live with being reverted. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your message on my talk page.
You may also wish to consider getting a wiki-mentor who you can turn to for advice regarding wikipedia policies and style. Cheers. Abecedare 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay, your knowledge and contributions to various articles is certainly welcome. As are educated comments about the subjects on the talk pages. I havent examined all your accusations about dab (you havent given the relevant diffs, for starters), but even if I were to take your word for it, I think its time that you came out of your dab fixation. If you feel that something that dab has written is not right, by all means place a {{fact}} tag at the end of the sentence. If you feel that what you're saying is right, then be prepared to produce your citation (title of the book, author, p# + a quote (preferably)). We'll examine both and if both are from reliable sources, in the interest of WP:NPOV, we will modify the prose so as to give due weight to both POVs. It is really just as simple as that. Especially for things like etymology etc., (whether its rc or rch or rcha or rchcha or whatever), it should be really easy to decide once we see the sources and read what they say. If there is still any ambiguity or disagreement about how things are worded, you can go for a "Request for comment" or informally request active editors for their opinions.

Also another way to go about things is, create new articles instead of trying to add your content straightaway to existing articles. For example, you said that you wanted to write about existing manuscripts, commentaries etc of the RigVeda (I request that you do it for all vedic/sanskrit texts). So instead of trying to weave it into the Rigveda article straightaway, create a suitably titled new article. Write whatever you want there and add your citations. Once that is done, it should be relatively easy for us to import a summary of that article into the main Rig Veda article. Note however, that while content forks are allowed, POV forks are not allowed per Ps and Gs. A POV fork is where you pick your POV and write all about your POV.

Yes.. I know that some of the things on wp dont make sense all the time, but that is the way it is. Even if Panini.. why Panini, even if Veda Vyasa himself were to edit wikipedia, he would have to cite his sources!

As for your block, I spoke in your defence because I really think that you were wronged (still feel that way.. I still feel that well meaning new editors should be warned before being dealt blocks). I recognise you as a 'well meaning' newbie though you do seem to be having some trouble understanding wikipedia as a concept. It is normal for newbies to be confused about several things around here and I am sure you will learn fast. Until then, please calm down and go a little slow because sometimes trying to do too much too fast can also be our undoing. More later. Regards. Sarvagnya 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Veda I've started this topic here. Kindly contribute. One can actually present personal findings here. BalanceRestored 12:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand me. Before postng any talk to a user, it is my habit to make a survey of that user's user and talk pages and some of his/her edits. I have a high regard for you on account of the information I could gather about you. As fas as your suggestion about "comments being made by other editors" , this is what I meant when I said that I was being projected as a vandal (not by all of them). You are being misled by others' comments . You will be forced to revise your views when you will know the truth, for which you will never find time. But you may find some time to look at the latest instance of my "inappropriate approach" in last para of Talk:Rgveda. -Vinay Jha _{Vinay Jha} 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]