User talk:Arhan Arya

May 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Animal sacrifice in Hinduism has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Animal sacrifice in Hinduism was changed by Arhan Arya (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893745 on 2015-05-06T13:31:37+00:00.

Arhan Arya (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)== May 2015 ==

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Animal sacrifice, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My changes are completely authentic. Can you prove me wrong ? Vandalism is deleting an article which is authentic. I have deleted unauthentic sources which are misleading. If you again revert my changes, you shall be blocked from editing pages.


 * If you believe that sourced content is wrong, then you should discuss the issue at the article talkpage, rather than simply deleting it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources cited meet our reliable sourcing standards. You provided no sources at all, just unsourced claims.  Wikipedia does consider censorship to be vandalism.  I look forward to you reporting me to the admins.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all what right do you westerners have on watching Indian Hindu pages ? I will soon provide sources. For time being you should check out the Arya Samaj and Swami Dayanada Saraswati. Max Muller, Ralph Grifith, Apte, etc. are NOT authentic sources.
 * What right do you have to exclude people because of their place of origin?
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, users do not have authority (See WP:Credentials_are_irrelevant, User:Misza13/Nobody_cares_about_your_credentials, WP:Ignore_all_credentials). The only authority is mainstream academic sources, not religious propaganda.  Wikipedia does not recognize unsourced claims, nor unverifiable claims of undefined authority.
 * In short: You have no basis of authority on Wikipedia, and your deletions were not authorized by any of Wikipedia's standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian. Racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and claiming that Westerner's views are invalid is racism. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the correct interpretation of the Vedas. http://www.onlineved.com/ I have complete right to claim correct information which doesn't mislead people, on basis of my knowledge along with place of origin. According to Wikipedia, the sources and information has to be authorized and correct. My deletions were completely in line with Wikipedia standards. Its ridiculous and funny at the same time of accusing me with harassment. The fact is that 100% westerners's views ARE invalid. Not because of their origins but simply because of their lack of knowledge. How the hell can they be considered authentic ? And I don't care what kind of charges you are taking against me. Warning me of this and that is of no use. I (along with my fellow folks) am going to continue spreading true authorized facts. There is no question of religious propaganda. I'm myself not religious personally.


 * Wikipedia works on [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] not stated facts. Saying "I know this is true, so it is true" is not the correct approach, you need reliable sources to support your arguments. Also, please stop with the anti-Western racism, it will get you blocked sooner rather than later. Joseph2302 (talk)


 * It's nice to know that your bigotry is not a smear on the religion you keep zealously trying to spread propaganda for. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda means false information. None of you could actually prove me false, but I have clearly proven my points. ////Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).///

I have shared Published, reliable sources with the majority academicians agreeing here. Further, even if there are people who are against the majority views (which are in tune with mine), there are different opinions. Such misleading information cannot stay. My request is, stop your ridiculous behaviour calling me a racist and all. I have nothing personal with westerners. I'm not pointing out to their places of origin but simply stating that their translations are outdated. And I have shared the modern alternatives.

Here is another link proving why these so-called academicians(now outdated) are ALL WRONG. http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconceptions-on-vedas

Religious propaganda has nothing to do with this.
 * Onlineved.com and vedicgranth.org are not academic sites, they are amateur religious sites. Your claim that "Max Muller, Ralph Grifith, Apte, etc. are NOT authentic sources" is irrelevant is ridiculous because the material you've been censoring doesn't even cite any of them.  Does Roshen Dalal sound like a western name to you?  How about Uma Vesci, or Upinder Singh?  Because those are the academics you're censoring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you dumb ? I'm sure you are not. I have respect for you and your curiosity that you at least went through my links. But what do you mean by claiming that they are 'not academic' ? Can't a religious website be academic at the same time ? Actually if you went through the website they have clearly debunked the claim of it even being 'religious'. They are 100% academic. Actually the website Onlineved is run by a larger Academic group- Pandit Lekh Ram Mission. Here www.aryamantavya.in. And the link what I have sent has not named anyone personally but have pointed out to the errors on the basis of PURE SANSKRIT grammar. Now when it comes to western-indian thing, i have mentioned well, that geographical origin has NOTHING to do with the content. May be I exaggerated by claiming 100% westerners to be incorrect. There are MANY westerners like David Frawley, Swami Kriyananda (who is also an academician), Koenraad Elst, etc. who support the Authentic native translations. Similarly there are a FEW Indian pseudo-scholars who have vested interests (most of them being Marxists) who purposely malign Hinduism as a whole. These include Uma Vesci, Upinder Singh, Romila Thapar, D.N. Jha, R.C. Sharma, etc. Roshen Dalal's works are mostly authentic. I'm NOT an inch against Roshen Dalal. Roshen Dalal has herself refuted Max Muller, Keith Wilson, Wendy Doniger, etc. as 'untrustworthy'. You need to research more on the authenticity of Hindu scriptures. Faith doesn't matter here. Arhan Arya (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)