|
Hello! Indoscope,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
heather walls (
talk)
21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
To help you a little bit. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This Map shared by User:Joshua Jonathan map suggests that the Iranians and Vedic people came from Andronovo culture. Kazanas disagrees with this view. He states "The Avesta is post-rigvedic and the Avestan language full of losses, attritions and mutations.The relative earliest possible date for the Gathic Avesta is the period of the composition of the late books of the RV as many sensible scholars have pointed out (Hopkins 1896, Tovadia 1950, Humbach 1991, etc)."
"Finally, not only was there no Invasion or Immigration into Saptasindhu but, on the contrary, after the Vedic expansion to the West including Gandhara and Bactria, the Indoaryans moved even farther west in small numbers of wise men (5.10.6, 10.65.11) to spread the Aryan laws; or larger numbers of “heretics” distanced themselves from their “orthodox” brethren; or others left to explore and seek new opportunities. This northwestward migration would have progressed from Bactria rather than Saptasindhu proper. The date for these westward movements would be much older than is thought and naturally after the melting of the ices." [1] Indoscope ( talk) 08:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
By not inviting me for this discussion User:Joshua Jonathan has engaged in a highly objectionable behaviour and along with like minded editors engaged in WP:GANG in order to gate keep a WP:POV in Vedic Period article, the neutrality of which was disputed by me. Indoscope ( talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes certainly removed from my talk page. But that is of no significance. I have not shared my email for personal contact with anyone. Anyone who wishes to contact me can do so on my talk page. Please stay on issues of facts rather than make issues out of nothing. Indoscope ( talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you for the info. I am already aware I have already raised and ANI for such a disruptive editing by some editors:- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_some_editors_Vedic_Period_-_Neutrality_of_which_is_disputed Indoscope ( talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There was clear agreement to merge because with two reliable citations, many pages about many books can be made. I think that you should forget about that page now because it is now merged. You can email me for information that how it went. Bladesmulti ( talk) 07:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Bladesmulti I don't think here were only two reliable citations I had cited many book reviews including from Current Science. Also even if there were only two reliable citations and many pages about books can be make in Wikipedia there is nothing in notability guidelines that say that The_Lost_River page should not exist. There wasn't a proper merge process followed ant not enough time given for discussion of merger. This merger is a clear attempt to make an otherwise notable book seem frivolous by editors who wish to keep a certain POV dominant in wikipedia articles. What would be called bad faith Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoscope ( talk • contribs)
|
Hello! Indoscope,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
heather walls (
talk)
21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
To help you a little bit. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This Map shared by User:Joshua Jonathan map suggests that the Iranians and Vedic people came from Andronovo culture. Kazanas disagrees with this view. He states "The Avesta is post-rigvedic and the Avestan language full of losses, attritions and mutations.The relative earliest possible date for the Gathic Avesta is the period of the composition of the late books of the RV as many sensible scholars have pointed out (Hopkins 1896, Tovadia 1950, Humbach 1991, etc)."
"Finally, not only was there no Invasion or Immigration into Saptasindhu but, on the contrary, after the Vedic expansion to the West including Gandhara and Bactria, the Indoaryans moved even farther west in small numbers of wise men (5.10.6, 10.65.11) to spread the Aryan laws; or larger numbers of “heretics” distanced themselves from their “orthodox” brethren; or others left to explore and seek new opportunities. This northwestward migration would have progressed from Bactria rather than Saptasindhu proper. The date for these westward movements would be much older than is thought and naturally after the melting of the ices." [1] Indoscope ( talk) 08:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
By not inviting me for this discussion User:Joshua Jonathan has engaged in a highly objectionable behaviour and along with like minded editors engaged in WP:GANG in order to gate keep a WP:POV in Vedic Period article, the neutrality of which was disputed by me. Indoscope ( talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes certainly removed from my talk page. But that is of no significance. I have not shared my email for personal contact with anyone. Anyone who wishes to contact me can do so on my talk page. Please stay on issues of facts rather than make issues out of nothing. Indoscope ( talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you for the info. I am already aware I have already raised and ANI for such a disruptive editing by some editors:- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_some_editors_Vedic_Period_-_Neutrality_of_which_is_disputed Indoscope ( talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There was clear agreement to merge because with two reliable citations, many pages about many books can be made. I think that you should forget about that page now because it is now merged. You can email me for information that how it went. Bladesmulti ( talk) 07:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Bladesmulti I don't think here were only two reliable citations I had cited many book reviews including from Current Science. Also even if there were only two reliable citations and many pages about books can be make in Wikipedia there is nothing in notability guidelines that say that The_Lost_River page should not exist. There wasn't a proper merge process followed ant not enough time given for discussion of merger. This merger is a clear attempt to make an otherwise notable book seem frivolous by editors who wish to keep a certain POV dominant in wikipedia articles. What would be called bad faith Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoscope ( talk • contribs)