User talk:Liberalvedantin

Hello, Liberalvedantin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

September 2020

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ram Mandir, Ayodhya seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your new version was ok. But I also found problematic edits at Anti-Hindu sentiment. If you are going to continue to engage in contentious subjects, you need to thoroughly understand all the policies, especially WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC) @Tayi Arajakate, the sources used are from The Quint website, twitter account, Huffington Post, Yahoo News India. Which specific source is unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalvedantin (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reliable sources guideline linked above. Most of the sources you have used are primary sources and can not be used to establish due weightage, some of them are also unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate Secondary source added to content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalvedantin (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you added states the following, at best the only direct relation is the mention of one of his article in The Quint.

Sharma, a veteran freelance journalist specializing in national security, foreign policy, and Indian political issues, has written for a variety of outlets, including the Quint, Rediff, Firstpost and dailyO, among others. He has also worked for prominent Indian newspapers like the Hindustan Times and Times of India in the past, a Press Trust of India report notes. (Disclosure: Sharma regularly contributed to The Diplomat until 2012.) Between 2010 and 2014, Sharma also wrote a weekly column for the CCP-affiliated tabloid Global Times, the Delhi Police noted in its statement.

This does not constitute due weight for inclusion in an article about The Quint. Per se, it is also a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, mention of supposed crimes of non notable individuals should not be added anywhere on Wikipedia unless at least widely covered and should be directly related to the topic of an article. On a sidenote, please sign your comments on talk pages. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your interpretation on it carrying weight, and that it has not been 'widely' covered, which I find to be an ambiguous term (see Yahoo News India, TimesNowNews, ANI on Twitter), the content will not be posted on this page. Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

Important information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 07:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a couple of these notices posted to my talk page. FWIW, I have noticed certain unnamed users who seem to have as a technique, diversion of attention from the fact that they have previously received warnings, by removing any warnings they do receive from their talk page (i.e. I posted a warning to their page and they promptly deleted it.) Anyway, this seems to be just an obviously intimidating practice. Anybody can generally post anything they want, and what they want to post is something that looks very official and which looks like (notwithstanding the explicit disclaimer to the contrary) it somehow is particularly applicable to you.

Simply being put "on notice" of your obligation to abide by these administrative rulings appears to place a burden on you to make sense out of these pages, and IMO, that would, in itself, be an onerous requirement (i.e. I could not quickly surmise whether any special rules are currently in effect.

Do the people posting these notices have any special authority? And assuming they do, is there a consensus among their peers (i.e. those with a similar level of authority) concur with them? Is there any procedure to report such behavior? If you find out, please let me know. Tks. Fabrickator (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two above notices are discretionary sanctions alerts. They are informational, and both state: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." The other notices on your talk page are warnings, which caution against further violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 10:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, anyone can post them. The sanctions were set by the WP:Arbitration Committee so they are official. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Love Jihad, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times and The Atlantic are not reliable? I do not see in the guidelines how what I added is unreliable? Liberalvedantin (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is full of news sources from The Hindu and Al-Jazeera. I have also used The Hindu as a source. How are those other sources reliable but not the ones I have used? Liberalvedantin (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Hinduphobia in Academia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Hinduphobia in Academia. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Hinduphobia in academia. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Hinduphobia in academia. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hinduphobia in academia. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Fabrickator, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, please stop making baseless accusations. I did not start the Hinduphobia in Academia page in response to Love Jihad disputes. Do not bring personal vendetta into this. The article was initially created as a portal about a month ago, before any edits were make to the Love Jihad page. The portal page was deleted and that is why I shifted the contents to an article form. When I start the page, it is to start discussion. Based on the available sources, there is little to dispute the contentions that have been leveled, which is why the page seems to suffer from neutrality. I am currently resolving this by adding other sources. So kindly hold your biases back. Liberalvedantin (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

I also don't understand what you mean by delete or edit legitimate talk page comments? I have done nothing of the sort, so either this is a misunderstanding or another baseless accusation. Please verify before you post such content on my talk page. Thank you. Liberalvedantin (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

Nomination of Hinduphobia in academia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hinduphobia in academia 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduphobia in academia 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. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited to address the concerns, however, those making the concerns also have said they did not read the sources properly or could not access the sources. This is not a justifiable reason to critique the source itself. Liberalvedantin (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Liberalvedantin, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Liberalvedantin, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMAC

For your understanding: the Indo-Aryans migrated to the BMAC,borrowed vocabulary from this culture, but did not mix with it's people. That's why the BMAC left no genetical trace in the Indian population. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this. But the page was missing info about source of south Asian ancestry, which is the theme of that section. Liberalvedantin (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Indigenous Aryanism that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This change of wording by you is definitely a personal attack. You brought in "Hinduism" at Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations#Changing it to a theory, I wrote "the system is not very kind for Dalits, is it?" "System" here does not refer to Hinduism, but to the Indian societal system; you equate it with "HInduism." Next you write "Imagine if someone said Islam is a terrorist ideology. Catholicism promotes pedophilia." Those are your comments, not mine. Please refrain from such comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming my page. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking about the "Indian societal system" as you claim, it was a nonsequitor. We are talking about Hinduism. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising which side you chose. Have you also blocked Joshua Jonathan for saying I ranted, or is that not a personal attack? Or the user with no name who called me "crazy" and a "nationalist"? Surely there was nothing personal about that. Liberalvedantin (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I didn't block the IP? You checked? JJ wasn't responding to you in that 18 month old post, why do you say he was? Please explain how I chose sides. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you didn't block the IP. I asked whether you did or not. You deemed what I said to be a personal attack, when all I did was point out that the sentence in question is racist, which it is, and that JJ refuses to change it despite my request to remove the word "Indian" in it because it is not relevant and enables prejudice, which I can see from the reply to my comment posted recently. Ergo, you seem to have been swayed.

As for JJ saying that I ranted, I was referring to an older conversation where he said my points were a rant. Is that constructive dialog? If so, allow me to accuse everyone I disagree with of ranting. Liberalvedantin (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]