Somethingsomeoneqwerty

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Somethingsomeoneqwerty, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Somethingsomeoneqwerty! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Persecution of Hindus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Talkpage-mess

I'll warn you only one time for this: don't mess-up the talkpages. Sign your posts with ~~~~, and answer in chronological order, taht is, below the latest post, instead of interweaving yiur replies through the posts of other editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and still not used to the proper etiquette. I'd appreciate it if you could accommodate my inexperience. Somethingsomeoneqwerty

Sati

Why were you fiddling with Sophie Gilmartin's quote? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You write, This chronology has led to the theory that the increase in sati practice in India may be related to the centuries of Islamic invasion and its expansion in South Asia citing Anand A. Yang (p. 21-23). Professor Yang notes many possible explanations - why do you believe the hypothesis concerning Mughals as important enough to occupy the (third and) fourth line of our article? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have Wink's book near me but don't recall him discussing Sati. No page number has been given either. WP:SYNTH. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's Sophie Gilmartin's quote wouldn't it be far more appropriate if it's referenced to as such. I had seen the opening line change several times, so I thought it's just a summation. I changed it based on the theory provided by Hawley. But I admit that if it's a quote it would be incorrect to change it.Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about why I cited Dr.Yang's theory, it's because he is a celebrated and noted historian [1]. If there are several theories provided by him, kindly add those well. But, if his, and other historians are removed for no reason, it comes across as clear agenda pushing.Your friend Joshua Jonathan had removed it, I can only assume by mistake, as he claimed in his edit that he was only going to move it. As for the part about why I added the line about Mughal, it's because that was provided in the description of the article that where I initially found a link about the Sati article. And it had all the proper sources and references. It's probably better than adding a line, which is already highly debated upon, in the opening paragraph, without any sources. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove it; read carefully before reverting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine but I'm goin to re credit it back to Yang, and also mention the early pre invasion models Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi, Somethingsomeoneqwerty. You are not allowed to hide behind a second account, as you did at User talk:LearnIndology. Please review our sock puppetry policy. I have blocked the sock account User:Dummypleasehelp. I understand that you're new, but please don't do something like this again, or you may be sanctioned. If you're not ready to take responsibility for a post, then just don't make that post. Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen:It felt like I might be harassed/stalked, so I referenced to someone who seemed to be experienced, and thought that they could help, or atleast provide explanation on who was right in this case, and what a truly unbiased viewpoint would be. I didn't want my account to be visible then. I won't do something like this again. I apologise. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there no way to talk to someone without other people getting to know about it? Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I find the message itself quite inappropriate: it's a WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation of the interaction so far, apart from WP:CANVAS. they exclusively allow only one side of the possible theories to be presented is incorrect; the pov's that were there are still there, but grouped together and streamlined. Either this editor lacks WP:COMPETENCE, or they're fundamentally biased; probably both. If they continue like this, an indef block seems appropriate to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See this is why I was uncomfortable about speaking from my main account. Do you just keep looking into what I do? And I clearly stated that I might be the one who was biased and want to know if there is any fair and neutral view. That seems to be the exact opposite of pov pushing. If I was biased I wouldn't have added the work of Romila Thapar, or wouldn't have tried to present both sided of Yang's views. And who gets to decide what should be streamlined, what should be properly attributed?? That's why I didn't try to change it arbitrarily, I tried consulting a third party on what would be truly neutral! The fact that you(Joshua Jonathan) seem to be so overzealous about monitoring others, is what drove me to having to use a sock account, something I won't do again in the future. But the thought that someone is constantly observing someone's work, possibly with negative intent can be really stressful. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And how is it WP:TENDENTIOUS if I am trying to talk to someone else?? Not simply editing an article. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I thought it'd be fun and fruitful if I could contribute in a proper manner. I hoped that it isn't true, but it seems that Larry Sanger was right(I don't know which ideology has taken over though). I'll quit on my own. It's not worth being constantly hounded and stalked. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)