User talk:Techsolutions360

Goethean

Hi, Techsolutions I note that you revert Goethean's edits. Goethean and I and others were fighting numerous times over Doniger; see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Views_of_Hindus

I suggest that you revert to the last Goethean edit; it is the most neutral and balanced version that we all can agree on; I and others added the countering of Doniger by Aseem Shukla of Hindu American Foundation. You and Goethean are going to be engaging in edit wars, so I think that the last Goethean edit is the most neutral and balanced view that everyone is going to agree with. Your edits would be viewed as biased and not balanced and would immediately be reverted by Goethean. Cheers, Raj2004 (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of providing all possible views about the author Wendy Doniger and her work

I don't buy your argument that you guys have been fighting numerous times over Doniger therefore one should revert to the last edit. The whole point of existance of Wikipedia is to present the Topics in an unbiased manner and in case of conflicting situations (like the article on Wendy Doniger) present the all possible published views so that the public in general can understand the such people and their methodology to the work they have done.

It has been now an accepted truth that the recent book (and many previous work of her) on Hindu history has several wrong facts and an insulting tone. People are filing petitions to stop the publications of her book (See www.petition online.com/dharma10/petition.html) and many of these people are highly reputed Professors and intellectuals like Doctors, PhD students and CEOs of the companies. There has been publications in Indian media, in famous magazine like "Outlook" and the popular weekly newspaper "Panchajanya". "Outlook" is as popular in India as the Time magazine in US. "Panchajanya" had seen one of its editor as the former Prime Minister of India "Atal Bihari Vajpayee" for many many years. These facts MUST reflect in the wikipedia article. The article written by Goethean has many many positives about Wendy's work than the real reception of her book by the intellectuals in India and abroad. Do you think the challenge by Professor Aseem Shukla on Wendy's work is a small thing? Why don't Wendy accept this challenge and come forward to protect her own work as heavily as the others are trying to stop her book's publications.

Why did you loose your fight with Goethean? You should have persisted till your last breath if Goethean can do so. Ultimately the truth is in favor as there are wrong facts and the insulting tone in her work. I shall put better sentences which will not reflect the bias but will highlight the negatives of Wendy's work.

LET PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT IS THE TRUTH, AS THE CONTENT WRITER WE MUST PROVIDE ALL THE POSSIBLE PUBLISHED VIEWS FROM THE RELIABLE SOURCES.

Several of us persisted for several months. Have you? I, like you, think Doniger's stuff is crap. The current version is the best we can agree with. Raj2004 (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that you like me have agreed to stop persisting. It is frustating but this is best neutral version that we can all agree with. Raj2004 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wendy Doniger. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware of wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing, neutral POV and biographies of living persons (see the Welcome notice below for other useful links). It would be advisable to discuss your edits on the article talkpage to reach a consensus, since continued edit-warring and disruption is likely to get you blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Techsolutions360, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Wendy Doniger

As an apparent single purpose account edit warring on the Wendy Doniger page you may end up blocked, considering especially that your edits are against consensus. I suggest two things if you want to avoid that. First, you should consider editing other parts of wikipedia for a while before returning to this article. That way, you won't be automatically considered an SPA. Second, if you do continue to edit this article, you do so through consensus on the talk page. I'm unprotecting the article for now but will block you if you continue edit warring. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, I am surprised to see that some Wikipedia Admin is making a threating tone to a genuine user of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how much of new content I add on Wikipedia or edit. Even a single effort of somebody has a significant role in making wikipedia a better place to look for unbiased content. Why would you go ahead and block! only because I am trying to argue Goethean that his writings on Wendy's article are not NPOV. He is trying to honorify Wendy by quoting Sudhir Kakar's comment in the Introduction who has worked with Wendy. If honorify in this indirect manner can be justified then why don't we include large negative reception of Wendy's work commented by several scholoars. Why the wikipedia policy will be happy to bring all the goods of a controversial author in the Introduction and the negatives in some corners of the remaining article! I have legitimate sources to include my view and my writings are no way harming Wikipedia policy. I am ready to work on bringing consensus on the article if Goethean is ready to bring his arguments without bringing Politics and his lenses of looking at things related to Hindu mythology.. Till that time I would like to get my NPOV get included in the article. I shall be happy to remove my writing if somebody can put strong arguments against my writing. We should be open to accept new changes in the policies if the Author on which that article is written is known for controversial writings.

My reading of the situation is that you currently don't have consensus for this edit. See, for example, the section above labeled gothean. There may be problems with the article, but this is not the way to go about changing it. I notice that you've made the same edit again but I won't block you for that if you promise to work on the talk page. I'm sorry if this sounds threatening but there are a lot of single purpose accounts that work on wikipedia and, generally, having a specific mission is associated with pushing a specific point of view. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic criticism of Doniger

Have you found any academic criticism of Doniger from a professor of Hindu studies? We have only found Professor Witzel's criticism. However, I have not found one yet from a respected academic journal. This is something that Goethean would agree with. We have been fighting for several months on the most balanced article with reliable sources. Trust me, the article was even more biased towards Doniger, see, [[1]] and my objections and revisions: [[2]] and Goethean's objections to my revisions: [[3]] So the current version is the most balanced version we can all agree with Raj2004 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]