User talk:Ashishsinghal74

I am amazed by the Victorian moral policing you people are doing. You are trying to bully me not to put a referenced content in an article without letting keeping open the said content(disputed by you) for public review. This is strenghthened by the fact that you people are trying to remove the remark as soon as it is put. This violates the basic purpose of Wikipedia - open content for anyone to edit. I request 'real' wikipedia admins to kindly block these users trying to prevent a point view not suitable to them. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Max Müller
Please do not add totally uncited material about Muller's relationship to Macaulay "supported" by a quotation from Macaulay that has nothing to do with Muller. This is an article on Muller, not on Macaulay. In fact Macaulay's views on education were the exact opposite of Muller's. This is evidenced in all the legitimate scholarly literature on Muller including his own Autobiography. See Friedrich Max Müller: a life devoted to humanities, p. 58. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:RS for information on how we should support the content we add with evidence. And please do not remove comments from the Talk page. See WP:TALK. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Ashishsinghal74, please do not revert again on Max Müller without getting consensus on the talk page for your changes. Right now you are edit warring with Paul B over this, and purely from a Wikipedia policy view, he is correct. You MUST have good secondary sources cited to your changes to add them. If you post links to them on the talk page, people will generally try to help. Right now though, you are at or past our WP:3RR limit, meaning you have reverted the article too many times today to your version. If you revert again, you will end up getting blocked. The intent of this is to force you to use the talk page rather than edit war. Please read the Wikipedia pages I've pointed you to, and work on the talk page for this. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Max Müller. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Max Müller. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kota venkatachalam rao


A tag has been placed on Kota venkatachalam rao requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beloved Freak  09:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to Max Müller has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Beloved Freak  09:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pradosh Aich
Please note that Lies with Long Legs by Pradosh Aich is not considered to be a reliable souece. See WP:RS. Frankly, the title applies more to the book itself than to the content. It's just a load of made up nonsense. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The content you added was not "referenced" and we do not put any old stuff in for people to "review". If something is asserted to be fact then we have to be sure that it is fact. All you have done is cut and paste text from the blurb of Aich's wholly unhistorical 'book' and present it as fact. Aich cannot even understand the meaning of what Macaulay actually wrote, let alone its connection to what Muller's quite distinct opinions were. If you wish to complain about the users who have reverted you, you can leave a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I think you'd be better advised to read the relevant policy pages that have already been pointed out to you. It might also be helpful to read a real scholarly book on Muller. Scholar Extraordinary by Nirad C. Chaudhuri is the best introduction to his work. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note Ashishsinghal74 that you also must not keep adding copy/pastes from sources without their explicit permission to do so. It is not enough to cite a source, it must (apart from small amounts of quoting, clearly marked) also be in your own words. If you continue to copy and paste in violation of our copyright policy you will be blocked from editing.-- Beloved Freak  12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any 'fallacies'. I merely added material to flesh out the section, which now says exactly the same thing it did before but with more detail and with references. Muller was a true Orientalist. Yes, he was a Christian. Is there something wrong with that? He believed that there were spiritual truths in all religions, but that Christianity had a fuller truth than others. Many Hindus believe the same thing about Hinduism. If you read many Hindu authors, Aurobindo for example, you will find exactly the same thinking in reverse. It is perfectly possible to be a sincere scholar while still believing in one's own religion. If you bother to read any of Muller's books you will learn that. I doubt you will ever bother, because I don't see any sign that you want to do anything other than have your own prejudices confirmed. Your posts were pure vandalism. You were not remotely interested in improving anything or learning anything about Muller. You added lies and removed truths. That's all you did. You have shown no interest in looking at actual relevant sources at all and I see no sign that you have even the faintest idea what Muller's ideas were. Your sanctimonous drivel about "my own betterment" is uttely nauseating. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Ashishsinghal74, you need to stop with the personal attacks in your talk page posts. The last few lines in your talk page post here are not acceptable. That's not the only example, far too many of your talk page posts disparage other editors. You need to focus on the edits, not on the editors. If you've got a dispute with an editor, look through the dispute resolution process. You and Paul Barlow seem to have a source dispute. There are previous discussions on the talk page about that source but you can try raising it at the Reliable Source noticeboard. Regardless, you need to tone down your posts and focus on specific issues with specific posts. Continuing along your current path will cause you problems. Please don't. I've left a similar message with Paul, hoping to calm this down. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
Ashishsinghal74, you are at WP:3RR on the Max Muller page, trying to revert in your unsourced commentary. Please do not revert this again as you will be reported to WP:AN3. Discuss this on the talk page and get consensus before making your change. At a minimum for that to happen, you MUST find a [WP:RS|reliable source]] that makes that claim. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)