User talk:Sbhushan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! - Thanks for your help oin the Talk:Out of India page.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Very Very Very Good ! I think the way you want to deal the OIT article is proper. WIN 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OIT

Welcome to Wikipedia. I like your ideas and would rather that the OIT was not presented as some crackpot religiously motivated theory. I haven't read the entirety of the OIT talk page yet as I am not getting much time on Wikipedia these days (life is getting hectic). Maybe in a week I'll commment. I was just wondering on which particular authors presented on the current OIT page are basing their claims on religious means as opposed to scholarly. Stephen Knapp and David Frawley are obvious (despite having distinctly non-Hindu names). Who else? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Hold it, hold it. I know you are new to Wikipedia so you may not know this. Wikipedia is essentially always a work in progress, with new material coming in to various articles every day. The tagging of every section on the OIT page and the creation of a cleanup section is bad for anyone that may want to read the article before December 2006. You don't know how many people want to read it. But I see the progress and work you are making and appreciate it, so I have an idea. I am going to restore the older version of the article on the actual Out of India theory page, and will create User:Sbhushan/OIT (I hope you don't mind that, and move the current thing you've got going into that). I hope you understand. By the way, I'll now make any changes I might have for the article on User:Sbhushan/OIT, if anyone else makes changes on Out of India theory, one of us should go and transfer them (if they are good edits) onto your OIT workspace. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Indigenious Aryan term of Bryant is associated with theory name by Dab to confuse readers about two theories for India. But Indo-Aryan Migration theory is not termed as a theory in it's article's name. Why ? Because then readers will understand IAM as some truth and IAT / OIT as some hypothesis or theory. Note that in IAT / OIT it's termed as hypothesis or theory , where as IAM is not. "Half truth" ! Same way Dab & Crculver are continuously deleting B.B. Lal 's links to his papers , Saraswati river's ref. in other Veda and Puranas etc. in IAM. Check it out. They just don't want to include it as B.B.Lal's papers are very well written with proofs & logic - as it's against IAT / IAM. WIN 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, why OIT page still finds Intro or History section as per Dab's view ? Then, please change it as per OIT view. OIT view was expressed by Sanskrit scholars when AIT was proposed but it was not `heard' in British Raj. For this point you can get good reference ( I remember Gidwani's book review ). Since you are very good in writing, please incorporate it in OIT.

I am not deleting any IAM supporting point and writing OIT point in IAM. I am against `Half Truth' or Negation or some Interpretation sounding like some fact. By incorporating B.B.Lal's papers in external links or adding that Saraswati river is mentioned in Yajurveda & Atharva Veda same as Rig-Veda & Saraswati river's less might or demise leading points are expressed in late Vedic Brahamans or in Mahabhrat is not without any ref. ( it's mentioned in Saraswati river article itself ). But,since it can give Full Truth understanding to readers, it's deleted in the name of `Bad English'. WIN 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear, see latest changes in OIT article. WIN 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIT/AMT

I saw your question at the AMT article. A migration scenario is today much more accepted than the invasion theory. There are still some minority views that believe in an invasion - which is discussed in the AIT article. (You may also find examples of such views at Stormfront).

The distinction between invasion and migration is not always very clear. This has been shortly discussed here (ch.3), here (ch.1.1) and here. --RF 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab is deleting ref. points in IAM article. We can report WP:OWN for Dab's behaviour as asked by Geo on my talk page. WIN 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Indian Mathematics

I thought you might be interested (at your convenience). Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page. The issue is disagreement between two users on whether entire versions should be reverted or better citations pointed out and procured on demand. Freedom skies| talk  11:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian mathematics

Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You are edit-warring on Indigenous Aryans, and are in danger of violating WP:3RR. Further reverts will result in blocks. You keep inserting nonsensical arguments, in spite of painstaking explanations by several editors on talk. This is disruptive in itself, and if you continue in this vein, you may also be banned. Note that you may also be blocked for gaming the 3RR. If you genuinely cannot follow the debate on talk and feel you are bullied, I suggest you open an WP:RfC on the article for wider input: if you want to pursue the subject, this is your course of action, while further edit-warring will not only lead nowhere, but reinforce the appearence that you are consciously trolling the article. dab (𒁳) 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

you are blocked for 48 hours. Fyi, see WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for an Independent Admin

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I am unblocking you upon your promise that you shall not edit Indigenous Aryans for 48 hours. If you should violate this condition, I will reblock you; If you honour this promise, I will accept it as a show of good faith.

Request handled by: dab (𒁳) 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |}

Also found and disabled an autoblock related to this. But I see the request has been answered, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: request regarding Unblock

If there are other users involved in the dispute, you could start a request for comment regarding the block; if not, you could post to the admin noticeboard to request a review. I would offer, but I'm off the computer in under ten minutes from now. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

if you're going to wikilawyer about this now, Sbhushan, I will request a sockcheck on you. If you're going to pursue the RfC route, that is, request comments on your "content dispute", and honour your offer to refrain from edit-warring for two days, it will be possible to assume good faith at least, and we'll try to address your concerns however garbled you put them. dab (𒁳) 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:Dbachmann

Perhaps you should address his abuse of privileges on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges as per Dbachmann's own suggestion [1] in response to the post [2] .I have made some additions to the ANI post made regarding this matter [3] which you can use in building your case. 70.113.122.198 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The option that Dab suggested requires at least 2 different editors on same topic who have shown effort to resolve the issue. So I can not use it in this particular case. But he has shown me the way and if he keeps on trying to publish POV original research, we will get to that stage too. Wikipedia policies apply to everyone evenly.Sbhushan 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of recent edit-warring and WP:3RR and other problems in this article, I have reported the WP:3RR offences at WP:3RR, in the hope that the edit-warring stops and Dab and you discuss the things together.
I'm not sure if I have to report you again, because you were already once blocked for the same offence some hours ago. If you should be blocked again, please provide evidence (diff's) for your WP:3RR, and you will be reported again. And if you think you have not made WP:3RR or were not warned, you should explain it. --RF 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Dab is trying to push supposed Aryan Invasion/Migration date to 2600 BC or even older , by Indigenous Aryans article. And, there by finding solace in Anatolian hypothesis for IA notion. Now he is portraying Anatolian hypotheisis as minor support. I understand his motives.By this one can get rid of finding any Vedic or Sanskrit in IVC. But, he is masking one point that archeology or genology don't support such a totally influencial migration in ancient India.Also, note the point that Caucasus mountain area is totally non-IE and this area is just next to Kurgan hypothesis' core PIE area. This point is a big point in proving that Kurgan hypothesis is defaulting on this very basic point. WIN 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Please read WP:Point before posting another disruptive RfC. --Fire Star 火星 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There was a user about a year ago who was starting an RfC on the same editor that was part of a cycle from a long time edit war that was deemed disruptive and summarily removed several times. I remembered it and thought you were a reincarnation of that process. Since you've explained your reasoning, without prejudice on my part I won't oppose if you re-establish the RfC, especially since it was suggested. Good luck! --Fire Star 火星 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I went to undelete the previous version of the RfC for you just now (which I should have done right away), and saw that you had already restarted it. Sorry about that. --Fire Star 火星 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case

Good Morning (GMT time); I have accepted your Mediation Cabal case - requested by Sbhushan - on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I am prepared to commence mediation as soon as possible. I would like to start by enquiring if you wish for mediation to be conducted at the Mediation Cabal subpage, or on the article talk page.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to Contact Me; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

Anthonycfc [T • C]
11:38, Saturday March 31, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AIT article

There is a discussion at the AIT article which could interest you. [4] --Rayfield 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More to life

See [5]. So try and get involved in more articles and at least some less controversial articles. It helps to get a perspective. Haphar 15:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see my history, I have been involved in more than one discussion over article/POV. Does not help much , and usually there are enough players in the system to balance things out. So apart from increasing the hostilities by focusing on just one article, or having a single point agenda or a "mission" leads to spiralling debates and no conclusions. It's your choice what you want to focus on.Haphar 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Haphar!!!. You want to discourage a person who is fighting for a right cause. I can guess your intentions the way you endorsed Dab's response.

It's spelled response. And this coming from someone who will not even create an id. Haphar 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good day to you too. My reply to your message is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sisodia#Good_day_to_you

Responded to you message. Thanks. Sisodia 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stop it please

stop blanking my references, Sbhushan. I am going out of my way to reference every tidbit in these articles, to the point of debility, for your benefit: you'll not even have to switch on your brain to follow the line of argument. This is hard enough as it is, without you clamoring for references on talk while at the same time blanking references I put in the articles. I suggest that you stop editing these articles until you have sat down and consulted, pondered and understood all of the references given. It's easy to troll talkpages pointing out yet another pronoun or preposition that doesn't yet have a footnote, but this is not good faith editing (not that I think this bothers you of course, but good faith is a requirement on Wikipedia). dab (𒁳) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

see my note on Talk:Out of India theory. Again, I invite you to get a mediator to edit for you, or post on talk on your behalf. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Indigenous Aryans.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RfAr

If that is the case, then why were the others named in MedCab and RFM? I couldn't understand the logic... And also, article RFC might have helped. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Regardless, it's still a content dispute, so it's still about the article. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome to leave comments on my talk page. However, I try to stay as neutral as possible. I may point some little things out to arbitrators, but personally I try not to get involved with "picking a side". - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

Namaste. Concerning your RfAr against Dbachmann, I have some information that will be of great use to you.Please configure your email in your "preferences" page so that I may contact you. Email me by clicking here Thanks. Nagsheh 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/b/h/User_talk%7ESbhushan_d874.html"