User talk:Neverignorant

Rigveda

Thanks for your comments.

You would not be "penalized" for blanking a section once. But it would be pointless to do this without a good rationale or a consensus among editors. Please see WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted, you are expected to seek a constructive discussion on the article talkpage. You will only be penalized if you do the same edit more than three times over (see WP:3RR), but it is pointless to go even that far.

Regarding content, I see the "indigenous Aryans" section has been tagged with {{undue}} for some time. I agree that it is a bit of a sore spot in an otherwise rather erudite article on a venerable subject. But we cannot deny that the Rigveda plays a certain role in pop culture and political chauvinism in India, so it is probably best to give it a brief mention somewhere down in the toc. But I suppose the discussion could even briefer. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia

I've just looked at your user page, and I must say I am very glad to see a fresh user interested in India articles with such a mature and intelligent outlook. As you say, the India articles have notoriety for the unbelievable amount of crap that is shovelled on them. They are not the only corner of Wikipedia that is in disarray, not by a long shot, but they are an excellent illustration of what is the outcome when the wiki process goes wrong. You will find what is particularly bad are the articles we have come to refer to as "gotra-cruft". Invariably edited by eccentric editors who are members of the group in question and who jealously guard their epic accounts of their family history. Please look at Kambojas (and related) for an extremely bad case. See also, for example, Jatts for a reasonably cleaned-up one, and others such as Origin of Rajputs, Rajput clans, Ahirs, and the endless lists at Category:Social groups of Pakistan, Category:Social groups of India and subcategories. I have no idea how we will ever bring this under control.

Regarding Sanskrit Wikipedia, it does exist, see sa:. However, I think the project is more or less stillborn. It claims to have 4,000 articles, but most of these 'articles' appear to be single words. "नवीनतम परिवर्तन" appears to show that on some days the entire project gets as little as a single edit in 24 hours.

Regarding your "adoption" template, please feel free to ask me for advice on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, conventions and best practice at any time.

regards, --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I've only gotten into wikipedia editing about 4 hours ago, and have found myself drawn exclusively to your editorial comments for their sagacity and courage, particularly when confronting the more chauvinistic among my people. I am honored and emboldened to have your mentorship- I was actually afraid to approach you!

Gotra-cruft....is the suffix German for "craft"? Because, and this to me is a strange coincidence, I have found myself rambling to about the exact same phenomena! Example- the History sub-heading of the article on Andhra Pradesh wherein we're shown this pearl: "An Andhra tribe was mentioned in the Sanskrit epics such as Aitareya Brahmana (800 BCE) and Mahabharata". The process is described among Indian sociologists (who, unfortunately, are too lazy to contribute to Wikipedia, leaving it to well-meaning plebs like myself) as "Brahminization", a sort of social matriculation once economic empowerment is experienced by historically more marginalized communities. I'm sure my ancestors were unwitting (or witting?) participants of such an historical process. Gotra-cruft is the martial variant of the same phenomena, I imagine. To bring it under control requires vigilance and not bowing down.

I feel we should convey to the vandals that Wikipedia's scope is limited to presenting scholarly consensus, and points of scholarly disagreement. Er, one question - what is the proper way in which to ask you for help? The format is a bit confusing for me, and I don't want to crowd your talk page! --Gnana (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, cruft is internet/computer jargon for "piles and piles of worthless crap". I must say that the Manusmriti is of course a venerable historical source, no quarrel with that. Post-Vedic, to be sure, but at least as old as Roman law and a valuable witness of a bygone age. It is just for the purposes of an encyclopedia, it is a primary source, while our articles must be based on secondary sources. "Uninterrupted" does not mean "unchanged". Every human language is an "uninterrupted" tradition connecting us with the Stone Age, but of course there is no memory left of the Stone Age, just an uninterrupted chain of transmission. There is a huge difference between the self-image of a clan or gotra, which may or even should be mythological or traditional, and the sober task of writing an encyclopedia article about the same gotra. Sadly, many people fail to appreciate that difference. Not only in India, but the Indians do seem to have a particularly hard time wrapping their minds about the "encyclopedia" concept. --dab (𒁳) 20:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate your taking a look at Pariksit#6. This is my first substantive addition to wikipedia. Its under Pariksit in the Vedas. I added the translation of Atharva Veda by Michael Witzel. Hows that for a humble start? --Gñāna (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you may also be interested in helping with the History of Hinduism article (apart from badly needed constant attention to the Hinduism one itself). I have tried to give it a boost back in 2008, and it has more or less kept, but it should be scrutinized in greater detail. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I would certainly be interested. I've read the mentioned article, looking for my own "answers." Its the same-old, same-old: pseudo-historiographical Vedic-(mis)centered treatment, complete disregard for "non-Vedic" traditions (Astika and Nastika is actually a pretty minute philosophical distinction- the import of the Hinduism article should emphasize the living tradition, what we have now is something akin to an article on Christian practice including a section on Neo-Platonic thought). --Gnana (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I agree, the Hinduism article should place weight on the living religion. Of course it should be in WP:SS style, as it is a huge topic, and each aspect should only be alluded to in briefest summary, with pointers to more detailed discussions. It is a great art to keep such central "main articles" focussed and free of clutter. The discussion of classical (medieval) Hinduism would belong on history of Hinduism, Hindu philosophy and related articles. --dab (𒁳) 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message in Tewiki

Thanks for your message in Telugu wiki. Please continue your contributions --Kajasudhakarababu (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Greetings Neverignorant, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I request your feedback on this template I made. --Gñāna (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Keep it up. —రవిచంద్ర (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Hello. You have a new message at Mr.Kennedy1's talk page. Message added 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]