User talk:WIN

Welcome!

I give myself the authority to remove bogus warning templates from my page. WIN 11:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Machaon 14:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

hi
Hi WIN, unfortunately not all your edits are written in a neutral way and are also lacking references/sources. I do think that many of your contributions are interesting, but should be written more neutrally and with references. Please take a look at some other wikipedia articles to see how they are written and try to find and give more sources (for example books) for your contributions. --Machaon 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WIN, please understand that talk pages here are a place to discuss the articles and that they are not meant to be an internet forum or Usenet. (I mean the discussions and posts at Indo-Aryan migr. and AIT). As I said before, please take a look at other wiki articles to familarize yourself about wikipedia. --Machaon 12:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

welcome
Win, glad you finally joined wikipedia. Listen, talk pages aren't supposed to be spammed with 1000-word long posts about your feelings every other day. Please look at the Wikipedia conventions for talk pages, etc. Vvuppala 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

History of India project
You might be interested in joining the History of India project. deeptrivia (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Language
How can you say that languages cannot be used as a valid basis for historical theory? What gives you the right to say that? A language is a central part of human culture and is just as valid as ancient buildings or pot shards. Your rejection of the AIT theory also has no basis. AIT is not a "rascist" theory. It does not state that the Vedic culture originated in Europe. Scholars believe that the Indo-Europeans originated somewhere around the Caspian sea, niether in Europe or India. Why can't you accept that people speaking similar languages share a common ancestral culture? It's been proved true everywhere else in the world!

Do not mis-understand me.I have always agreed that language can be used as some valid basis for historical theory. But, when only that one point is basis for Aryan Invasion ( AIT ) or Migration Theory ( AMT ) then it is not at all valid reason for any supposed AMT.There is some thing like going of Rig-Vedic people like Anu and Druhyu people from India in Rig-Ved and King Yayati ( who is called as very very ancient King in Purana - literally meaning ancient -during start of Indian civilization ) 's expelled 3 sons from North West to outer countries.So, when so called Aryans writing in Purana about their people going out of India during time predating any Aryan Migration is very logical point to explain any similarity of Indo-European languages with Sanskrit. There are many other against points for any AMT already written by me in talk pages.

If Aryan theory is right then why Max Muller proposed them first as Superior & cultured and termed original native Indians as Dravidians who were like nomad & uncivilized type people who were invaded by Militarily powerful Aryans. But, the same people's position totally reversed when Indus Civilization was excavated in 1921.Aryan became nomad type and Dravidian became very cultured , highly civilized town dwelling people of Indus Valley civilization. So, you can know that your whole original concept of cultured Aryan ( from Sanskrit Arya ) is reveresed then also to call this theory as some scientific is really silly in it's sense by the Aryan theory supporter. By this vast Indus Valley people were not having any minute scriptures and minute Aryan people were credited with vast Sanskrit scriptures !!! Read my points for much more details. WIN 07:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration
Wikipedia is not a chat room or Internet forum. Please stop debating on the Talk page for the Indo-Aryan migration article. CRCulver 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can not give any logical answers to my points raised against Aryan Migration, then do not expect me to digest the lies and allow other people to believe in Aryan Migration theory. I want to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting the very idea of any Aryan Migration in very civilized,large & populus Indian subcontinent by very small numbered nomad type some so called Aryans who are called as capable of changing linguistic & cultural map of ancient India. This is very strange to grasp who knows in detail about India. It will be very easy to walk in line like goat for Western people because they do not know about this points ( old or newly found ).I do not blame them but so called western Indologists who have done everything to discredit anything good about India & mis-guide the world with Eurocentric lenses. WIN 09:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place "to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting" in the way you are doing. If you keep this up you may be banned. CRCulver 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, try to answer to my raised points or stop spreading lies and mis-guide the world. WIN 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not our responsibility to answer your arguments, since that falls under original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. The purpose of the Talk pages is to reach consensus on what the scholarly community feels, and the vast majority of reputable scholars feel that the Indo-Aryan migration theory is viable. CRCulver 16:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The same so called Scholars have interpreted from Rig-Ved during 1850s that original Aryans were civilized invaders on horsebacks who subdued original nomadic and black `dravidians' & pushed them to South India.But after Indus Valley civilization's excavations in 1920s, your same scholars had to turn Aryan as nomadic and original Indus Valley civilization people as civilized dravidians. And now same Aryan invaders have become migraters after recent ancient Rig-Vedic Saraswati river and other findings. Your same scholars have told in last century that Rig-Ved was composed in Central asia or Afghan area but not in India. Why your Same Scholars are always proving wrong that they have to always change their theory ?

Just think that some thousands people from central asia can not change linguistic & cultural landscape of highly civilized India in max. 500 years via migration model. There were many Central asian INVASIONS and not MIGRATION in historical times like Shak, Hun etc. but instead of imparting any cultural or religious or linguistic thing to India, they themselves were colored with Indian paint. So, it is simply illogical to credit some `Aryan' people from central asia to possess high intelligence as shown in Vedas. How some thousands of people can change language of millions of people via peaceful migration for which there are not any single record in any Indian scripture. Try to think it logically and read Aryan Theory opposers' points logically. You can read this http://www.boloji.com/history/019.htm for more details.And, there are many Scholars who now oppose previous interpretation of Rig-Ved. WIN 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See? Now you're just rambling on here. I don't care what your personal opinions are. I don't care what you think is right and wrong in archaeology. The sole task of Wikipedia is to mirror the state of scholarship. As it is, the theory of a migration of Indo-European speech into India is dominant. It is dominant whether you agree with it or not. It is dominant whether you think it is fair or not. Other theories can be mentioned, no one is stopping you from giving a small mention to Indian nationalist theories, but the dominant theory must receive the most space according to the rules of Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you can go start your own free encyclopedia project. But as long as you are here on Wikipedia, why don't you abide by its rules. If you continue this pointless and totally masturbatory debating on Talk pages, I will take you to RfA with a view towards having you banned. CRCulver 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The points raised by me are not only mine but AMT opponents which includes many Indian and Western scholars who have come to oppose this theory based on many scientifically proven factors which I will not elaborate here. So, DO NOT IT AS JUST RAMLING.WIN 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright please listen win, you dont understand what wikipedia stands for.I understand your emotions with regards to the matter.And I agree with you personally that the AIT is wrong and does a lot of harm to an entire country's cultural reputation. But you are spoiling a resource for billions for the satisfaction of a few.The truth is there isnt enough published work to disprove the theory.All evidence has been circumstancial to date.Dont worry I have read Frawley's book.And I dont agree with everything he says - neither should you. If more people do what you are doing ,then such a beautiful resource as wikipedia is, will be lost for all.Do you really want that - for your personal satisfaction do you want to mess up something thats this great an idea? I want to help you with this project and maybe in a few weeks we could work together to fix this article up? I am going to see one of my lecurers who is a specialist in south asian archeology - shes suggested a reading list for me to study the indo-aryans, and its a big list of books.Once ive read them and talked to her personally it might be easier to get published evidence.What do you say? In the meanwhile you have to stop with the blogs.Im a friend so please try to listen to some sense ~ The Mystic 13th May.

You can read many articles on http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html which is written by N Kazanas, Athens, Greece who is Sanskrit professor and logical person who has taught students about 20 years about AIT but now the same person is against any AIT / AMT. Why ? Then read the articles in detail to understand. Win 05:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Win, Im sure you have found resources to back up your argument and you are familiar with the topic you are talking about here. Just because a few scholars have writtern against AIT it is not enough, to disprove all the other ones who have. You cant just pick one viewpoint which you like and then stubornly say that this and only this is right - can you be a hundred percent sure about something that happened so long ago? No you cant, so you have to represent all the ideas and viewpoints in a nuetral way. It would be never ending to respond to your arguments because you freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss realms of testimony.Unlike a true scholar you have little if any respect for data or evidence.Your commitment is to an ideology and your 'findings' are shaped to support it. If you feel your said web site has good points then why dont you rewrite a small section based on the findings of this author, and also write articles about the authors themselves. Again that is just one author. To turely appreciate all sides of the controversy you have to read all viewpoints - only then can you try to convey a nuetral message to the world. Tell me why should people 'listen to your logical points' if you are being selfish and not doing the same. The problem is not with what you are saying its how you are saying it. The Mystic

WIN, CRCulver is right: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a web chatroom. There are many places on the internet where you can discuss your opinions. On Wikipedia, we are asking you to refer to academic opinion. This means that you have to go to a library, and read articles in academic journals, and if you want to make a point, come back citing your reference. Since it is obvious that you have no background knowledge of the involved disciplines, I suggest you read also a few introductory books. You even misunderstand the "AIT" itself. It is of course undisputed that Vedic culture was influenced by a strong IVC substrate. Try to understand a point before you argue about it, and argue about it on discussion fora and not on Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 11:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I may not have read each & every articles from library in this matter but they are very old as this topic's aspects are changing every now & then. So, this theory should be always viewed with respect to newer findings & not with old parameters.See, now you are also telling that Vedic culture was influenced by a strong IVC substrate which no Western Indologists have agreed in their AIT/AMT books from last 150 years.So, how nomadic aryans could spread their Sanskrit language on most of ancient India in complete totality when Sanskrit grammer is very hard to remember if your mother tongue is not Sanskrit.If you really know Sanskrit then you can understand my very logical point.Then, there is no meaning in reading that age-old books on AIT which says about invasion with pure speculation. After IVC excavation Aryan becoming nomads & IVC a dravidian civilized. Rig-Ved composed not in India at all. I do not want to read that baseless & purely speculated Aryan theory from that age old books since they can not answer AIT/ AMT opponents any single points which I have raised and I know what's extract of it those books very well. That's why I have raised many points which no supporter is able to answer.Read properly http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html  which I have already sited above as reference. WIN 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Again win this is not about being a supporter or not being a supporter. Think about your reasons for being a supporter or not. Wikipedia is a resource for intelligent people, who would like to read and understand for themselves all sides of a controversial topic. The Mystic

And, that's why I have written points so that any intelligent person should know both the sides of this theory. WIN 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you have rambled on the talkpage, filling it with naive fallacies. If that is "the other side", we don't need to talk about it. If you want to have an effect, intelligently cite people like Renfrew or Kazanas so you can get "Neolithic Indo-Aryans" mentioned at least as a fringe view. I certainly won't do your homework for you. You have clearly no idea about linguistics or language contact, and I really recommend you stop indulging in the Socratic method. dab (&#5839;) 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Aryan migration
Please stick to discussing the article and what should be included in the article. Talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, and instead cites other sources. Therefore, if you have a problem with the subject of the article Wikipedia is not the place to try and convince other people of that. Continuing to mis-use the talk pages could mean you get blocked for disruption. Petros471 17:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning. I will block you for disruption if you continue to use talk pages to discuss original research rather than simply citing existing published work. Petros471 09:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to sysops&#58; Unblocking yourself should almost never'' be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.'' Petros471 08:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.png|30px]] You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.

Dear Petros471, it seems that negation about any point which slightly opposes is matra of my opposers. Many times previously in Discuss pages I have found their mistake.They are not commenting Ancient Saraswati river point inspite asking several times.Because it troubles them with this theory.Max Muller had conversion motives and was paid by British Kingdom, was not accepted by Paul & other supporters.He accused me with bad words but I have tried to answer for those words by Max Muller's letters. I have recently modified Overview of Aryan Migration history which is accepted by all.But even that is deleted because of negation of valid points. Supporters of this theory are spreading lies or hiding some facts or mis-represnting data in their favour. Is it wrong to say that Retroflexs are in Russian & Polish ( it's written in Retroflex topic of Wikipedia as I am not speakers of that languages ).Is it wrong to say that Avesta contains Retroflex with proper ref. And, is it wrong to point the mistake of saying that retroflex in Sanskrit shows Dravidian influence. WIN 10:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The way it appears to me, and to other editors, is that you are trying to argue the 'rights and wrongs' of the topic, without providing the references. This is the problem. Your arguments above are also hard to follow, although I am not familiar with this subject area. Petros471 11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replied on my talk, per the multi-person involvment reason at the top of it. Petros471 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

using elementary syllogisms and well-formed language may be a pov, WIN, but it is difficult to have a debate without it. You will have noticed by now that no-one is interested in your diatribes, and if you have nothing else to offer, it may be time to just, well, move on. dab (&#5839;) 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WIN, all I can offer you at this stage is moral support. Just tough it out with those guys in AIT debate and I am sure the truth shall triumph. I unfortunately am very busy with other projects these days and not being able to devote sufficient time to wikipedia.

Bachmann is some unhinged individual who once came very close to being stripped off his admin powers for insulting all indians with cuss-words. We even took out an RFC agaisnt him regarding this. Unfortunately nothing came out of it as wikipedia indians are not well organized and are too independent minded to act collectively.

So friend, don't lose heart. I am thinking of creating a indian nationalist wikipedians guild to better protect our heritage against racist attacks by these lunatic editors. Till then we will just offer the helping hand to each other as the need arise.

cheers Sisodia 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stay strong.Bakaman%% 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From me too. "Arise, Awake! Do not rest until victory is within your grasp"! Jai Hind!Netaji 07:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism and Hindu Mythology
Do you want to join these project? Thanks GizzaChat  &#169; 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join
I have made an attempt to organize patriotic indians within wikipedia as a common interest group. I have created this category for this purpose [Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild]. You can join this category simply by adding this category in your personal user page. More details are in the category page itself.

regards

Sisodia 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits
Thanks for making contributions to the article instead of just Talk pages, as you just did in Aryan invasion theory. However, please be aware that if your assertions are not sourced from scholarly material (and books, not webpages), someone will eventually delete them after the Citationneeded tag has been up for a while. Also, your English does not seem good enough as it is to edit, you should ask a native speaker for corrections before you add your material, or be active as an editor in the Wikipedia of your native language. CRCulver 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Iranian Avesta
I agree that AIT/AMT is a load of garbage, I'm saying in the comment you gave some ammo for Paul and Citecop to ask questions that would be hard to answer. I don't believe Iyers are "aryans".Bakaman Bakatalk 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Out of India theory map
I fully understand your points and fully understand that it seems illogical for the PIE not to spread to the Gangetic Basin, but until I can find another source that provides a similar chronology it is simply OR to show it as such. In essence, this is Elst's map, not my map, I just created it for him. If you have issues with him you can email him or something and tell him to look at the Wikipedia Map. If you find a source which provides a similar OIT chronology, I think I can incorporate them both into my map to make a sort of generalized OIT scenario.  Noble eagle   [TALK]  [C] 05:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OIT vs. AIT theory
Well i went through these two theories once. Although there are several points in favour of OIT, the one point that makes AIT/AMT indispensible is the Horses, as no Archaelogical remains of Horses have been found in India dating before 2000 BC. This also makes Mahabharata unquotable in many instances as they have detailed descriptions of Chariots at quiet a few places. (Though this does not make Ramayan unquotable as there are no chariots discussed between the earlier versions of Ramayana, i.e. Book 2-6.)--nids(&#9794;) 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding horse issue, there is something here http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/horse1.htm. I am going through it. WIN 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, i think Nobleeagle has done a good job in writing a presentable OIT article which is still compatible with the current academia. But i do feel that there could be an article on Neolithic origins of Vedas, (though i know it is really tough considering the current level of research). So lets start one on yours or Nobleeagle's user space. We can discuss points like archaestronomy, the flowing saraswati river in vedas, Swastika on IVC seals and other data (except for linguistics 'course.) to support our/frawleys views.nids(&#9794;) 09:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Win, don't get in un-neccessary discussion with Dab, he is just pushing you. I learned from Dab that it is better to quote WP policy back at him instead of arguing with him. If you see the OIT page that is being created, I think the other side is going to have a hard time. They are going to try to challenge qualification of the authors and I am going to fight that. Pick and choose the fight, don't let minor things distract you. Regarding Horse issue, please see Kazanas and Elst article, horse remains have been confirmed by non-Indian specialist before 2000BC.Sbhushan 19:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OIT: warning for disruptive behavior
Please stick to discussing the article and what should be included in the article. Talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, and instead cites other sources. Therefore, if you have a problem with the subject of the article Wikipedia is not the place to try and convince other people of that. Continuing to mis-use the talk pages could mean you get blocked for disruption. Maunus 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also not the place to do the dirty work of other users. WIN has talked about things to add to the article, its only that users like the one above, have forgotten about WP:AGF, and are doing the bidding of users higher up.Bakaman Bakatal k 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you accussing me of being a sockpuppet? Because then I would like you to substantiate that claim. What I have done I have done because I was tired of WIN acting like he did cluttering talk pages with pseudoarguments in favour of the theory, despite several polite petitions to cease that practice. As far as I am concerned there are no users "higher up" and I resent your insinauationss that I have deleted his nonsense on behalf of others - I have deleted it on my own account but on behalf of sane wikiedpianists. If  his arguments have "scientific weightage" like he thinks they do then he should publish them in a journal for scientific research not on wikipedia talkpages. The Users you mention and myself have asked WIN politely to stop presenting original research on the talk pages several times,but he has inserted more material of no consequence for the article. He has not talked about things to add to the article but has advanced a certain viewpoint which while it is related to the article is not possiblee to include.Maunus 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well that you aren't a sockpuppet. I dont care what dab asked him to do, Nobleeagle, nids and myself think he has good things to say. I merely stated above that you were obviously doing their bidding, a charge substantiated when you talk of "sane wikipedians". Dab has a problem with "Hindu gerontophilia" and obviously dislikes WIN anyway, regardless of how sound and true some of WIN's suggestions may be. I have no respect for Paul Barlow, he's quick to call users "nitwit" and what not. Well accusing WIN of "cluttering talk pages with pseudoarguments in favor of the theory" merely is a pseudo-argument on your part to justify censorship on the part of "sane wikipedians". This discussion between you and WIN is distasteful, with you attacking WIN (see WP:NPA) left and right for no reason.I am reinserting all comments that discuss OIT, and I really could care less what "sane wikipedians" think, I will stick to consensus instead.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure Bakaman would insist a four year old was an eminent scholar with an important point if that four year old happened to say what he wanted to hear. I dislike WIN's edits, obviously, because I like encyclopedicity, rationality and Wikipedia in general. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow lol funny to see someone "entrusted with admin powers" start trolling on talk pages. Sad to see that your army of trolls couldnt get me banned? Baka man  23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Army? Trolls? Baka, it was quite clear that the ArbCom wasnt going to examine your behavior in the Kelkar case. And I suggest you keep it civil in expectation of the day they do. Dab didnt even contribute to the workshop page, IIRC. Hornplease 10:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Is the page acceptable or is there something missing still.

In Liguistics section, Brahui should be mentioned as late-comer in that area since it's presence was stressed as evidence for AIT or Dravidian IVC. If you have more points then outline first here. Astroarchelogy can be elaborated with some more ref. In Dravidian sub-stratum influences, it can also be mentioned that even Retroflex are found in Russian & Polish. WIN 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Witzel is arguing now that Dravidian came after IA to Punjab region and he is inventing another language X as IVC language. Bryant (2001 p 175) mentions that if we assume IVC was Dravidian, how come there are no Harappan sites at all in that region?. Same thing applies to Munda. I am not going to add any more material at this point. I want to stop Dab from adding junk and also would like to remove the text that is not propoerly referenced. I have left tag at few places and one place Dab has removed tag without providing ref. Need help in keeping Dab honest. sbhushan 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot to mention is that AMT theroy was created by linguistic model and has to be dismantelled by linguistic model. Bryant (2001) has collected all kind of data and also provided how the same data can be manipulated to support OIT. If you get a chance read that book. We don't have to do any original research, quote mainstream argument back at mainstream. Their argument is so shaky and full of holes, that I am surprised they haven't changed it themselves. Edmund Leach's comments come to mind. Proto-Bangani when proven or IVC decoded will end this discussion. They can't argue that India received 2 migration - one from earliest stage and second from final stage. sbhushan 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Win, don't waste your time trying to convince them. Having a proper article is the objective. As you can see some of the mainstream scholars are already starting to accept that OIT might be a viable option. Look at Bryant's book and some of Hock's statement. You can also see why Witzel is arguing for little earlier entry. If you argue in same spirit, I am afraid it can be used against you. Based on the data in the article, now criticism section for AMT can be created and let people see OIT.

warning
I see you are moving from rambling and spamming to vandalizing and revert-warring. If you continue like this, you will be blocked from editing. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldnt that be abuse of admin powers? Of course you're merely reverting "Hindutva trolls", so its all good. Baka man  23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hapta Hend & Airyanem Vaejah
I am glad that you decided that the change I proposed for the mention of Hapta Hend along with Airyanem Vaejah was necessary. However, I couldn't find your change. It is possible you haven't made it yet; remember, it is for the Memories of an Urheimat section. The change should be to simply list Airyanem Vaejah alone. Please get back to me. Thanks! The Behnam 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I-Ir homeland question and it's association with Kashmir and Sapta Sindhu is explained in great details by Talageri. He has given ample cross ref. from those linguistics scholars and I believe that Talageri's work is more accurate as it combines Rig-Veda which no other have done. And, many Rig-Vedic hymns were mis-translated & mis-interpreted is a fact. WIN 10:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this response now. You are supposed to respond on my talk page; otherwise I may never see it! In any case, let's continue the discussion on the pertinent talk page. The Behnam 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab's Indigenous Aryan theory
Dab has created a page on the completely non-notable Indigenous Aryan Theory which (is meant to) represent the latter half of the Out of India theory. He has then proposed to split the Out of India theory page to two pages, IAT and OIT. I disagree because Indigenous Aryan theory is susceptible to deletion any time as it is completely non-notable and the OIT page is capable on its own to represent both halves of itself. Splitting information across two articles won't help their quality in this case. I have responded to Dab at Talk:Out of India theory, please express your views.  Noble eagle   [TALK]  [C] 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Europeanist "Linguist" Community
Hi WIN. I don't understand why you are placing "linguist" after Indo-Europeanist on the Out of India Theory page. There is no need to add the description because, by definition, Indo-European Studies is a linguistic field; see Indo-Europeanist. Thus, adding the "linguist" description is redundant. This might explain why this change of yours is usually reverted. I'm just letting you know since it seemed, based on your edits, that you didn't realize or simply forgot this definition. If there was some other reason that you felt a need to emphasize the "linguist" description, at least discuss with the other editors before making the change so that they can consider its merits. This may prevent the usual revert, and so is better than nothing. The Behnam 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your desire to clarify the linguistic aspect seems understandable. So, I think you should bring it up on the talk page, so that dab and Zora and other "reverters" can be made aware of your reasoning; otherwise, they'll just continue to revert your changes.  In any case, "the Indo-European linguistics community" is better English than "the Indo-Europeanist linguist community", so if you manage to convince the others to let your edit remain, make sure to correct the writing.  Of course, I say "better English" for the American/British English that the English Wikipedia uses; I don't know what the standards are for the Indian dialect of English.
 * I agree that the article at CAIS is an interesting Iranian perspective, though it isn't representative of all similar views. The acceptance of Aryan migration is fairly standard Iranian scholarship, as most Iranians accept that their Aryan ancestors came from outside(though there are "Modern Iran as Urheimat"-type fringe views).  Considering that their own cultural tradition attests to an outside Urheimat, and that they weren't tormented by British occupiers over the matter, I'm not surprised.  Much of this particular work seems to accord with mainstream Airyanem Vaejah identifications; it points to a region east of the Caspian Sea, so typical places like Bactria, Khwarazm, etc. seem plausible.
 * However, the central idea, on "yellow-skinned peoples" pressuring "weak" Aryans to move, doesn't have much historical support. Turk & Mongol migrations are not prevalent before the Common Era, and nothing in ancient Iranian history indicates fighting against "yellow-skinned" peoples.  The Avesta has Turya, but does not indicate that they are Turks.  Cyrus the Great met death fighting east of the Caspian at that time, but there were no Turks.  He died against the Massagetae, a type of Saka, and hence an Iranian people.  If Turks had pushed out the Aryans in that region, there definitely would have been Turks residing there.  The Shahnameh's ideas about Turanians being Turks is a later development, seen only after significant contact with Turkish peoples.  See, p. 2 for an articulation of this point.  So, you probably shouldn't judge the CAIS article as the embodiment of fact relating to Aryan migration.
 * In the ancient era, Aryan culture encompassed most of the usual Central Asian areas in addition to Iran and India. The Saka accounted for much of this Central Asian presence, this map  is a good depiction.  As can be seen, the Turkic groups used to reside in the uttermost parts of the north; their modern southern presence is the result of much later migrations.  These later migrations definitely affected Iranian peoples, but the recency of these events leaves them irrelevant to discussion of the Indo-Iranian Urheimat.
 * One of the most prominent characteristics I see in the Aryan culture is the pastoral lifestyle. The Gathas attests to this; if you read it, you will notice that herdsmen and livestock are important, especially cows.  From what I have read about the Rig-Veda, a similar lifestyle is portrayed, including the praise of cows.  Correct me if I am wrong, as I have not read that scripture.  When I read about the IVC, I think of bricks.  Lots of quality bricks.  The cities are large, with manufacturing technology of great sophistication for that time, especially for bricks.  Trade appears important; overall, a settled urban lifestyle is expected.  The IVC may have had bricks and metals, but there is no reason to believe that they are the only people who could have invented and used such items.
 * The wars of the Arya appear to be against similar people, not the dwellers of sophisticated cities. I do not see why it is so often asserted that IVC was probably crushed by Aryan nomads; while there are definitely historical cases of nomads overtaking a sophisticated civilization (ex. Roman Empire, Islamic Conquest of Persia), there is no real evidence indicating that this was the case in Punjab.
 * That is all for now. If there is any other question you want to ask me about these Aryan issues, just post them on my talk page.  Just keep the free discussion off of the article talk pages, since those should only address article content.  The articles themselves shouldn't reflect our personal opinions on the topic, so this kind of discussion wouldn't be appropriate there, but I don't mind addressing Aryan issues on our user talk pages.  I welcome any questions you have.  The Behnam 07:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Saka invasion of India is not the same as the theorized Aryan Migration; it occurred much too late (~180 BC). The conflict was essentially between two Aryan-derived cultures; an Iranian type and an Indian type.  Of course, the Saka & friends were more nomadic than India, but at that time no great technological gap existed, and their assimilation into India in no way establishes a rule regarding such invasions.
 * As I said, I don't have any reason to believe that the Aryans and IVC battled, as Aryan scriptures do not speak of attacking sophisticated cities, and scholars have no hard evidence of these two groups warring. Of course IVC had smaller settlements; I am just arguing that there is no reason to say "invasion" given the evidence.  According to what I have read about the Rig-Veda, round forts like those found in what is now Afghanistan were attacked, but such forts are not characteristic of IVC, which seems more grid-based.  Also, note that the pastoral lifestyle I spoke requires movement flexibility to satisfy the grazing needs of livestock.
 * You are mistaken if you believe that the Persian language was not changed by the Arabic invasion. A great deal of Arabic vocabulary was added, a new alphabet was enacted, etc.  Also, the Arabic invasion managed to impose religion some other cultural traits upon the Persians, so if anything, the Islamic Conquest of Persia is an example of a nomadic group invading and influencing a more sophisticated civilization.  Also note that while Persia managed to keep a unique identity, many other areas covered by the Islamic Conquest ended up with Arabic culture and language, so it is not impossible for a nomadic groups to cause cultural and lingual changes to other peoples.
 * Overall, the possibility of cultural and lingual changes to a conquered people rests with the strength and goals of the conqueror. In any case, it isn't readily applicable to IVC because there is no evidence of an Aryan invasion against that civilization.
 * While over a few months of reading related talk pages I had encountered your various arguments on article talk pages, I don't plan on hunting them down to respond. You shouldn't place OR on the article talk pages; I am willing to discuss the topic, but only on the user talk page.
 * Also, as I already said, consider discussing your "linguist" issue on the article talk page, as I am sure that your change, and possibly mine as well, will be reverted once they get around to the OIT page. I haven't edited for very long, but if there is one thing about editing I'd advise, it is to not edit unilaterally.  If you get them to agree to your change, they won't revert it, though it may be a difficult debate, considering the definition of Indo-European studies.  Thanks for responding.  The Behnam 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kashmiri People
Hi, it just occurred to me that as an Indian who studies Indian stuff you may be able to contribute to the Kashmiri people article. I recently made it NPOV, but I still find the article problematic simply because it doesn't discuss any solid, current facts about the people. Only fringe views are discussed. Maybe I am mistaken, but I figure that as an Indian you may have more knowledge and references regarding modern Kashmiri people than I do. If you can help out, or at least refer the matter to another editor who knows more about Kashmiri people, that would be great. The Behnam 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll probably just find an Indian Wikipedian's noticeboard somewhere.  Thanks anyway.  The Behnam 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I noticed that you and some other users are have a disagreement over Indo-Aryan Migration. Would you be so kind as to explain what's going on. G e  o. Talk to me 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, i am trying to get this dispute resolved before it blows into a mess. G  e  o .  Talk to me  05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a chat with dab and crculver and the reason their unhappy is because they believe your edits are

poorly written. In the future, one way to get around this, is to post the proposed changes on the talk page, prior to its addition. This allows other users to check your spelling, and prevents them from claiming you are adding well.. crap. If you need any help, feel free to contact me. G e  o. Talk to me 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to report Dab for violations of WP:OWN G  e  o .  Talk to me  18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A discussion has been started at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/chat2007. Your input would be appreciated. G  e  o .  Talk to me  05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aryan Migration Theory
Win, AMT page is for AMT and undue weight can NOT be given to other theory (OIT) on that page. It does not matter what your or my personal view is. The data has to be presented as per WP policies, readers decide for themselves. But WP policies apply to every one equally. The data presented to support AMT also has to be properly sourced and accurate.Sbhushan 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Win, I thought OIT history section was well written, tell me what do you find wrong with it. let us start with 2 most important issues at a time. AMT is only linguistic theory, archeology doesn't support AMT. So providing more archeological evidence is not going to have any impact on linguistic. Quality matters more than quantity. My approach is to first understand what is the linguistic "evidence" in support of AMT, then to see if other linguistic scholars have countered this "evidence" in acceptable publications. Personally, I want to stay away from any evidence that would not be acceptable to linguistic, since it won't acheive anything. Where I see OR, I am going to tag it and ask for references. If no references are provided then the section should be ammended.Sbhushan 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Indian Mathematics
I thought you might be interested (at your convenience). Talk: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 11:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I have opened an RfC related to IAT at []. Could you please add your views to that.Sbhushan 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BB Lal's article
It is funny that Dab spent quite some time on AMT page trying to keep BB Lal's article out. Now he is quoting from the same article and has misrepresented 2 critical conclusions. BB Lal says Harappa had Sanskrit around 5th century BC (last paragraph).

I did not commit to Dab any time limit on my editing, but till an independent admin says otherwise, I will still honour the limit.

I saw you note earlier re WP:OWN, but I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges is better place. It requires at least 2 editors on same issue who have tried to resolve it. So it can not be used in this particular case. If Dab does POV OR again, this will come up again.

For the IAT article, it should be clear that they can not relate it to any mainstream theory. If he tries to quote OR, I will ask for citation for controversial comment. I am waiting for Third party or mediation cabal to get involved.Sbhushan 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

formal mediation re: Indigenous Aryans
I have opened a request for formal mediation re: Indigenous Aryans Requests for mediation/Indigenous Aryans. I did not add your name to the request as I was not sure if you want to be involved. The request is to keep the article focused and only use the text that can be citied from acceptable sources. I want to stay away from any fundamentalist discussion. Please do read instruction regarding mediation if you decide to get involved. It is only about issues and not about motivation of the editor.Sbhushan 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

your recent behaviour
When several editors are reverting your additions, you are expected to explain what you want on talk, looking for consensus and prepared to settle for a compromise. Your drawn-out edit-warring, tempered only by your awareness of the 3RR, but not by any insight or constructivity, is disruptive gaming of the system, blockable under Blocking policy. If you continue, you may either face blocks of increasing lengths, or an arbitration case concerning your accumulated history of "contribution" to Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aryan Migration Page
It seems all of us are experiencing problems with these guys. I have opened a discussion on the talk page about the bias, non-neutrality, and ganging up. There is also another one going on in the Aryan Invasion Page, your comments or help is appreciated. Thanks. Cosmos416 22:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case
You might want to take a look at an Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence.

Notice of appeal redirect
Hi, I have redirected this article, prviously deleted by you or with your prodding, to Appeal, and made a new section thereon. I hope you don't mind. Bearian 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rigveda
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Ruud 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rigveda. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Dark Falls   talk 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda Dating Controversy
Please instantly see on Talk:Rgveda :  Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating. --Vinay Jha 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please instantly see on Talk:Rgveda :  Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions   -Vinay Jha 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people need your email address.  V

Email

 * Namaskaar. Please email me by clicking here. I may have some help for you regarding your troubles on wp. Stefan Gerlach 17:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Undhiyu
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Undhiyu, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stormbay (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)