User talk:Gauri a11

Ways to improve Prabhakar V Vartak
Hello, Gauri a11,

Thank you for creating Prabhakar V Vartak.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Notability is proved by multiple other independent people writing about the person or their works."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I will try to improve the page as per your suggestion. Appreciate it! ga11 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! Sorry to bother you but I have misspelled the page name itself. The page should say Padmakar and not Prabhakar. How do I fix this?? Thanks! ga11 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the name. You may also like to look at the history of P. V. Vartak https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P._V._Vartak&oldid=395109929 which I just brought back for you to see. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh great! Thanks a lot! I didn't know he had an earlier page and history. That's helpful to know. Thanks again! ga11 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW, Toddy1 at the AFD discussion mentionned that it may be possible to find independent sources. If these were found we could rewrite the article based on them and that version could potentially survive deletion.  Even if the discussion results in delete, such new article could be written in WP:DRAFT space, submitted via WP:AFC and this would be immune to WP:G4 because it would not be the same old article version.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Booksfact.com
Sorry, but this website completely fails our criteria at WP:RS, please don't use it again. It's full of nonsense. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rigveda, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I am not sure why you think my edits on Rigveda are not constructive. They add to knowledge database, are sourced from authentic sources. Can you elaborate? Thanks. ga11 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Tilak and Vartak are WP:FRINGE, not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shivkar Bapuji Talpade shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Padmakar Vishnu Vartak for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Padmakar Vishnu Vartak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Padmakar Vishnu Vartak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''diff "I can't help but think that there is a anti-Hindu bias at work here from some editors." Be carefull with WP:ASPERSIONS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  02:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)''  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia
I post this message because you appear to promote sources and material related to Vartak. Hello, Gauri a11. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Paleo Neonate  – 05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Vartak is not related to me remotely and neither do I know him. Just because I happen to edit a few articles related to him, it's quite a stretch for you to assume that I personally know him. ga11 (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Padmakar Vishnu Vartak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abhijit. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
After seeing your personal attacks and evasion of reasonable questions and comments at Articles for deletion/Padmakar Vishnu Vartak, I took a look at your other edits and found this quite frank statement from you about "working outside wiki with other organizations" to push your own political stance on to Wikipedia. You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to help create an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 23:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC).

( Non-administrator comment ) The comment on that user's page was concerning but I didn't know what to make of it. It wasn't clear if it meant attempting legal action (in which case WP:NOLEGALTHREATS would apply), if it meant joining and putting efforts into advocacy groups, if it meant doing offline WP:CANVASS campaigns against Wikipedia, attempting to out editors, etc. In any case, the proper way to proceed would be to publish through reliable sources that may be usable for Wikipedia. This would still be unlikely to work considering the attempts to promote pseudohistory (like about aviation history, about the age of some texts). Vague complaints of WP:POV were also misplaced since it has a specific definition on Wikipedia: reflecting what reliable sources say. Systemic bias exists as a result, but that's unavoidable: Wikipedia attempts to reflect mainstream knowledge bias and it is not the place for WP:FRINGE WP:ADVOCACY or WP:PROMOTION. I'm a bit sorry that it came to a block as like I wrote before above, with the proper approach it may be possible to eventually have an article on Vartak. — Paleo Neonate  – 00:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , - What a horrible way to treat a new user. Doubt he'll be the first or last, going by the general behaviour I've seen over the last few months. Maybe you are pleasant people in real life, but here you come across like toxic, petty little bullies, and at the expense of new contributors and wiki articles, too.  had legitimate grievances, which as evidenced on this page, included Paleneonate making unsubstantiated/false accusations of "conflicts of interest". Funny how no-one had anything to say about that, or Bishonen's rather convenient (and flimsy) "interpretation" of Guari's posts as a excuse to ban him. Carlduff (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carlduff, @PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the support Carlduff! Admin RegentsPark has published false statements on Padmakar Vishnu Vartak afd page without doing his due diligence and fact checking. When I called him out on it, Doug Weller turned around and accused me of making a "personal attack" instead of taking RegentsPark to task.

And now Bishonen has accused me of being on Wikipedia to "push my political stance" (whatever that means) without a shred of evidence. PaleoNeonate can't seem to understand it either but apparently Bishonen gets to make personal and arbitrary judgement calls like this. ga11 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've encountered Josh and Doug, myself. As have many others. I am genuinely sorry things worked out this way. Carlduff (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you think this user was treated unjustly, I encourage you to read through their contributions, educate yourself about the topics they were trying to edit, and then tell us what sort of response would be appropriate and still based in policy. It's easy to jump to that judgement if this talk page is all you've read; if you're familair with the issues, the reactions would make a lot more sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Happy to discuss. So, first, in regards to being accused of having a conflict of interest on this page, and in regards to WP:ASPERSIONS, where or what is the evidence to justify this? Carlduff (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was probably the pushing of P.V. Vartak so hard, but I think that was in line with their other edits. Not a new user though, around since Dec. 2018. Doug Weller  talk 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Probably'? New user or not, is that your evidence as per WP policy to justify the accusation (which states the evidence must be presented)? Carlduff (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gauri_a11 was not accused of having a conflict of interest, they were informed as to the appropriate steps to take if they did. The template used was the usual one, and does not contain accusations, only instructions. The use of that template is typical for new accounts with a strong interest in a single real-world subject; it is doubly justified when a user with less than a dozen previous edits makes a whole string of additions all related to one person, about whom they have also written a remarkably flattering article. When they stated that they had no conflict of interest, accepted that at face value. As to the aspersions,  already provided a diff, so I'm surprised you're asking again; but the link in question is this one, where Gauri_a11 made accusations of anti-Hindu personal bias, which, in the absence of concrete evidence about editors' motivations, is a textbook case of casting aspersions, and so they were warned about it. Doug Weller, Bishonen, RegentsPark, and myself are all admins; between us, we've probably issued these warnings over a thousand times. Often, they're taken to heart. In this case, they were not, hence the block. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's User:Joshua Jonathan - I didn't know he was normally called Josh. Doug Weller  talk 18:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer JJ as an abbreviation, but Josh works as well, in this context ;) Regarding the diff provided above by Vanamonde93, Gauri a11 was exceptionally unable to understand that Tilak is not considered as a reliable source. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First, if someone posted about plagarism, disruptive behaviour, POV pushing, or posting porn on your talk page - not saying you did - but just to ensure you are 'informed as to the appropriate steps to take' if you did, you'd be OK with that? No implications there? I don't think so. Second, writing anything that may be considered "flattering" in your opinion does not constitute evidence, either, and still does not evidence any conflict of interest... unless you want to argue all practicing Hindus have a "conflict of interest" and so cannot contribute to Hindu-related articles. Third, I see no warnings on this page about Gauri a11 'casting aspersions', an accusation unrelated to the "conflict of interest" post he cannot defend himself against since he is blocked. Carlduff (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, if someone posted informational notices on my page today, I would likely thank them for it. It doesn't happen often, because I've been here a while. But that's really besides the point; you clearly have not bothered to actually read what I wrote, nor to read the substance of the various warnings here. Also, your understanding of our policies (including but not limited to COI, ASPERSIONS, RS, and FRINGE) are so far out of step with that of the rest of the community that I have no further interest in engaging further. If you believe an administrator's actions are in error, the place to ask for review is WP:AN, and the place to ask for redress is WP:ARBREQ. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Joshua Jonathan: so Tilak, the first leader of the Indian Independence Movement, is not a reliable source? According to whom? Or do you mean Vartak? Anyway, if not considered a reliable source by whom and on what authority? Apprently Princeton disagrees, since he is included in their library: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/SCSB-3440420 Carlduff (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That means nothing. I've never been in their library but I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in Yale's library and it had books just as fringe. Being in a library doesn't endorse it as a reliable source. Doug Weller  talk 19:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vocal support! I certainly appreciate it. Without digressing too much, it needs to be said that the "exceptionally flattering" page on Vartak is based on a translation of the Vartak Marathi Wiki article and this is clearly mentioned in the editing history logs itself of that page. It not unnatural for any editor to make several edits on particular topic(s) and it's a stretch to go from that to "conflict of interest". In addition to Carlduff's references to Tilak, I have provided several secondary sources that quote him on the Rigveda Tilak talk page but apparently he is still unreliable. This could go on.

But in the interest of keeping this concise, it needs to be noted that none of the above comments explain Bishonen's somewhat bizarre accusation that I am on Wikipedia to "push my political stance" (whatever that means) without a shred of evidence provided. It's quite a serious accusation to level at someone with no evidence. ga11 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" according to an admin of a site itself considered so unreliable that universities generally do not permit references to its articles? How do you know Vartak's writings are "fringe" in Indian or specifically Hindu culture? There's already a Hindi article on him, at least a year old. Many of the books from the 19th century about subjects such as the Rig Veda are "fringe", so "fringe" that they are in the public domain since no-one is interested in publishing them. And ton's of "fringe" articles here that have very few hits per day. I don't think that renders them unreliable. Carlduff (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. As you can see, this is going nowhere. Carlduff (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing some Indian scientists might agree with me.. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you can't tell the difference between ASTROLOGY and ASTRONOMY. That is likely why Vartak is not mentioned in the BBC article, i.e. since his subject is astronomy, not astrology. As an aside, I'm also guessing you may not know that astrology - or rather Vedic Astrology, refferred to as 'Jyotisha' - is considered one of the six Vedangas or limbs of the Vedas. Edit: The BBC newsite is not a reliable scientific source. Carlduff (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I had the same exact discussion with Joshua at Rigveda Tilak talk page. He didn't know that Vartak and Tilak's work is purely astronomical and NOT astrological. And yet apparently they have the authority to decide they are fringe and unreliable without even knowing the basic fundamentals or differences in these subjects!ga11 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And it's very interesting and noteworthy that Bishonen's bizarre and fairly serious accusation that I am here to "push my political stance" doesn't have a single piece of evidence put forward. Discriminating against people based on their "imagined" or "presumed" political or religious views is a discriminatory practice, not to mention defamatory and slanderous.ga11 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ballantyne (2016), Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire, also calls it astrology. Anyway, a source from 1893 which argues that the Vedas date from several thousands of years BCE is not exactly within the boundaries of present-day scholarship. But prove me wrong, and provide some high-quality sources which take Tilak into account. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * what is the actual quote, and what is the full reference to verify (e.g. including chapter and page number(s))? And why are you again pooh-poohing a source just because it was written in the late 19th century? Are you asserting wikipedia should be expunged of all pre-modern scholarship, e.g. including the works of Newton? Does WP have a policy to back up your dismissal on this basis? With this in mind, define "High quality" so there's no ambiguity. Carlduff (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would suggest Doug and Joshua to first of all educate themselves on the fundamentals of astronomy abd Jyothish, and then engage in any discussions on these subjects that they currently know nothing about. In the meantime, this being the case, it is indeed strange that Joshua is apparently in almost sole charge of Rigveda page since Rigveda is liberally sprinkled with astronomical references and nakshatras positions all over the place which he obviously knows nothing about. ga11 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If late 19th century sources are unreliable then it's also very remarkable that Western authors like Max Mueller, etc. are taken as textbook reliable, not to mention hordes of others. ga11 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

the evidence for political POV pushing is clear to anyone who reads the Rigveda or the Shivkar Bapuji Talpade history and their talk page, the various posts at editor talk pages, as well as at least two instances of direct admission of being on WP for advocacy (a direct diff was provided by Bishonen to one, hence the ultimate WP:NOTHERE block)... — Paleo Neonate  – 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're blocked, you know, Gauri a11. This talkpage was left open to you so that you could request unblock, if you wanted to, per the instructions in my block notice. Since you're instead using that access to make personal attacks, it has been revoked. See above for how to request unblock. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC).