User talk:Carlduff

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bhagavata Purana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bhagavata_Purana check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bhagavata_Purana?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views (November 16)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Animal_Testing:_Contrary_Scientific_Views Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Animal_Testing:_Contrary_Scientific_Views reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Kurma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kurma check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kurma?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Ananta, Tamas, Ratna and Ajita

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Carlduff

Thank you for creating Origin of the Bhagavata Purana.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, appreciate the review! In a nutshell, it is impossible to reliably date this or any other Vedic or Puranic literature. The article was originally intended as a section in the Bhagavata Purana, but it turned into a somewhat lengthy process to "disentangle" the layers of claims, mostly repeating claims themselves repeating other claims, often ultimately based on pure speculation or even nothing at all. Evidence-wise, it all boils down to a reference by Al-Biruni around 1000 CE. The issue of the origin of the Bhagavata also seemed to be somewhat of a contentious issue, so was hoping to put that to rest.
 * If you have any suggestions to improve the article, then they would be most welcome. Had considered adding a section exploring the 'inter-textual' aspect of this Purana, elements of which can be traced back to the RigVeda. Problem is, the Vedas can't be reliably dated, either. And dozens (if not hundreds) of Vedic texts have been lost over time, too. Another issue is that although it seems quite certain the Bhagavata is a later Purana - the legend of Matsya in it, for example, seems almost-certainly to be adapted from the likely-earlier Matsya Purana - but there is no way to prove this (i.e. it's all purely speculative). Carlduff (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the informative response, but I have absolutely no dispute with any of the content in the article. I am not anywhere close to knowledgeable on the topic but as an interested reader I find the text convincing. My initial concern was simply about the article's title per Wikipedia naming conventions. The title of the article may give the reader the idea that it nails down the origin of the Purana, but you have said above (believably) that such a thing is unlikely. Therefore I am merely suggesting a change to the article title, something along the lines of Theories on the origin of... if it doesn't become too awkward. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thinking was/is that as the article is a general reference intended for the lay-person (especially to settle disputes since claims are often taken at face-value), a more generalised (albeit imprecise) title was best. It's easy to find and remember, and I believe most searches would be phrased this way. However, your point about that lack of precision is right. If the title is a problem, then I suppose a new article could be created and a redirect left on the current one. Happy either way. Carlduff (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Taittirīya Brāhmaņa has been accepted
 Taittirīya Brāhmaņa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Taittir%C4%ABya_Br%C4%81hma%C5%86a help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

February 2020
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Taittirīya Brāhmaņa a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Polyamorph Totally understand! Used your advice and moved to correctly-accented page, so much appreciated as well. Can I ask: Do major edits in my sandbox copied and pasted into existing articles count? Carlduff (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Copy/pasting from your sandbox is fine. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Varaha
Please familiarize you with yourself with the following policies, which are not adhered to in the article:
 * Close paraphrasing:
 * "Mythologically, according to Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, a well-known historian, Boros are “the offspring of son of the Vishnu(Varāha) and Mother-Earth” who were termed as ‘Kiratas’ during the Epic period."
 * Ref: "Mythologically, according to Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, a well-known historian, they are “the offspring of son of the Vishnu and Mother-Earth” who were termed as ‘Kiratas’ during the Epic period.": The entire sentence is plagiarized, but without quotes. Write in your own words.


 * WP:QUOTEFARM: The article is filled with quotes. Again, paraphase and write in your own words.
 * WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE: The Gita does not mention Varaha, but mentions sacrifice, which is related to Varaha. This is an WP:UNDUE and synthesis for Varaha.
 * The "black boar" statement in Mahanarayana Upanishad statement is another example of synthesis. Neither reference says the black boar is referred in the Upanishad.
 * You may go through some articles at Featured_articles, which will give a better idea how the best articles in Wikipedia are written. While lot of hard work has gone in this article, the article is going into unnecessary details and it will be very difficult to non-Hindu to understand the article.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * : Appreciate your feedback. I'll address each point:
 * 1. The "close paraphrasing" referred to in regards to the Boros People has nothing to do with me; that info was added by different contributor.
 * 2. Your claim that 'neither reference says the black boar is referred in the Upanishad' (i.e. refs 55 and 59) is demonstrably false. Daniélou (ref 59) refers to the earth being 'raised by a **black boar** with a hundred arms' (penultimate paragraph of p168) and Eggeling (55) states 'the earth is said to have been uplifted by a **black boar** with a thousand arms' (ref 451:1 on the linked page).
 * 3. No explanations or examples have been given to support why you believe there is too much detail or whether a non-Hindu would have difficulty understanding the content, most of which consists of paraphrases of Puranic myths. Regardless, I see no problem anyway since you and other editors can edit and simplify as you wish.
 * 4. Totally agree with your criticism regarding the synthesis of the Gita and Varaha (and agree with you removing it).
 * 5. Heavy quoting is my writing style; I do not like paraphrasing too much. Still, moot point as I've no plans to contribute further to wikipedia. Carlduff (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Personalized attacks
Carldruff, your personalized attacks on at Talk:Dashavatara are neither helpful nor reflecting well on you. If you wish to discuss actual article content, please do so in a civil manner laying out what changes you are proposing and what reliable secondary sources support those changes. If on the other hand, for whatever reason, you find yourself unable to contribute on the page or collaborate with the editors active there, please find other articles or areas on wikipedia that may be a better fit. I am writing this note instead of giving a templated warning because your other contributions show that you are capable of making positive contributions to the project and are not here just to snipe and troll. I hope you'll reconsider your conduct at Talk:Dashavatara. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, Abecedare, I didn't realise people like Joshua get to take ownership of articles, start edit wars, revert changes without explanation, ignore legitimate criticism, manipulate other users, shit all over people's time and effort, and knowingly disseminate false information in articles... as long as he's polite about it. I've no plans to contribute to wikipedia again because of people like him and like you. Your loss, not mine. Carlduff (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hindu edits
Sorry that you are no longer active on Wiki as an editor but completely understand. I am having similar experiences as you with the same editors too. You can see this on my talk page on edits related to Rigveda and Talwade. The admins can't seem to decide on why Tilak is an unreliable source and so far I have had three separate reasons one after another. They come up with a new reason after I successfully refute the previous one. ga11 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your frustration. Unfortunately, I was not the first contributor to have problems with their manipulativeness and mind-games, and you will not be the last. There is no point in taking the issue to the senior editors / admins either, as they are even worse, and you'll just be threatened, insulted and mocked (as I and others have been). I suspect this is why many Hindu-related articles on Wikipedia are neglected. That's just the way it is on this site. You might be better off spending your time and energy elsewhere. Carlduff (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you. There seems to be hardly any neutral point of view. In fact, in my experience one of the admins actually wrote false information publicly with no fact-checking and not even a warning was issued of any kind. Anyway, you know how all this works so no point in just repeating it. If you are curious though, take a look at my Rigveda Tilak talk page and Padmakar Vishnu controversy. In any case, you are absolutely right that this is not a worthwhile use of our time. In fact, this makes me even more motivated actually to work outside Wiki with other organizations to fight what appears to be some serious POV pushing. I would suggest you do the same and devote time to other organizations that are working to counter this. Use this experience to get motivated and work with others outside Wiki.Best of luck to you! ga11 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions
You may want to read WP:ASPERSIONS and to provide evidence for your rant. Please avoid pinging me for baseless accusations, unless it's to report me at an appropriate administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 14:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read that very article yourself, given - as very clearly stated on Gauri a11‬'s own page - you did in fact accuse him without any evidence of having conflicts of interest. Nice way to treat a new user giving his time and energy for free. You obviously don't like being accused of things... even if actually true in your case. Also, I already tried taking the same issues I encountered with the same people to the admins, and just got cussed, insulted, mocked, and threatend for it. That's why you can't hold onto new users, and why Hindu-related articles are neglected. Carlduff (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism is fine when justified and done properly. Attempts at shaming for trying to help editors and to protect the encyclopedia when necessary are not (and it won't work on Wikipedia).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning
I have revoked Gauri a11's talkpage access. Please stop using their page as a discussion board; the talkpages of the articles in question are the right place for that. If you make any more personal attacks on User talk:Gauri a11 or elsewhere, you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC).
 * What 'personal attacks' are you talking about, exactly? I called you a bully because you blocked a user based on a blatently false accusation of 'not being here to help create an encyclopedia'. His contrib history alone proves this to be false, and you know he was angry and frustrated about how he was treated before understandably saying he wanting to leave. You could've shown a bit of respect to the guy instead of just blocking him like he was nothing. Feel free to block me anyway. I honestly don't care. Carlduff (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You missed my point completely
I realise it's probably a waste of time explaining myself, but I'll try. Of course I know the difference between astronomy and astrology and that Vartak was using astronomy as an argument to push arctic ancient origins, not astrology. It's the point good Indian scientists are making, that science should not be used as a vehicle to push a political argument, which was what Vartak was doing. As for Guari, it's no coincidence that his first editing interested as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the fathers of Hindutva. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you are saying, and the recurrent spats with presumed or apparent Indian nationalists on the wiki. I am also certain you and the other editors usually involved in these spats (e.g. Joshua) give a lot of your free time and energy to benefit the wiki, too. My point - based on my own experiences and observations of some of these other spats (including with Guari) - is that the same contributors and admins can come across as dismissive, unfair, and outright hostile to others, usually escalating conflicts and then punishing people when provoked into reacting. It comes across as bullying, whether intended or not. It does not help that the same admin citing various WP policies (albeit rarely ever specifics) in the process themselves often ignore and violate the same policies without anything being said about it. Carlduff (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried hard with Gauri. And failed. Some new editors just won't accept that we have policies and guidelines that need to be followed. Doug Weller  talk 13:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Meant to link to as an example. Of course, NPOV is a policy few new editors are going to understand.  Doug Weller  talk 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views


Hello, Carlduff. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)