| Revision as of 04:31, 19 February 2006 editBWD (talk | contribs)1,063 editsm →Copyvio← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 20 February 2006 edit undoShivraj Singh (talk | contribs)867 edits →CopyvioNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :Definitive proof was provided. --]<sup> (])</sup> 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | :Definitive proof was provided. --]<sup> (])</sup> 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Impumozhi is a liar== | |||
| He reads a few internet sites and thinks he is an expert on the topic. Here is an exchange between him and me on multiple pages related to the history of rajputs. | |||
| Following excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Proposed_decision | |||
| <snip> | |||
| The "another matter" I wish to bring up is how starkly the "Hindus only side" contrasts with Bachmann on the yardstick of scholarship. I cannot forbear from trying to get something done on a permanent, or atleast long-term basis, about the activities of that group -- activities that can rightly be termed depradations. These depradations are by no means confined to the pages listed ; they now pervade a whole bunch of articles dealing with Indian history and even such somewhat peripheral pages as ]. Read page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? Leave aside veracity, just the choice of words? Yet nobody dare change one comma or fullstop in that page: it is "owned" by that presiding deity of obduracy, the learned protagonist of every page with a remote "rajput" connection. The ] page is one of the least controversial in that group, but it bears witness to: | |||
| *how the smallest changes are impossible to make on any page ever visited by this group, | |||
| *how the very concept of objectivity is alien to them, | |||
| *how requests for citations are simply erased, | |||
| *how every entry they make is informed by bombastic caste-pride. | |||
| Certainly, these people genuinely believe what they write, even on the ] page -- they would not know otherwise, their views being informed mainly by an execrable set of caste-glorificatory pamphlets. My views on the famous and oft-cited list of 65 reference-books is available (please scroll to the red-lettered section towards the end of the "changes comparison"). | |||
| I have previously expressed the same views, for instance , never to any effect, and I despair of ever obtaining recourse if nothing avails me on this forum. I think it is essential that, rather than confine their final decisions to the ] and associated pages, the arbcom should take a broader view of the contributions-record of the protagonists, and encourage the permanent departure of those who simply are not equipped to contribute to an encyclopedia. The sad alternative is to have less belligerent, more bookish people gradually depart WP in despair and disgust. Regards, ] 08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I will have to disagree with Impumozhi. Impu, in my opinion, represents a group which on reading a few internet sites think they are experts on the topic. His claim about ]'s character being funny and un-encyclopaedic (Cut and paste from Impumozhi's comments above: "Read page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? ") is actually taken from ]'s ''Annals and Antiquities'' page 384 and 385 Vol-II: | |||
| :''On the death of the queen Joda Bae, Akbar commanded a court mourning; and that all might testify a participation in their master's affliction, an ordinance was issued that all the ] chiefs, as well as the Moslem leaders, should shave the moustache and the beard. To secure compliance, the royal barbers had the execution of the mandate. But when they came to quarters of the ]s, in order to remove these tokens of manhood, they were repulsed with buffets and contumely. Then enemies of Rao Bhoj ] aggravated the crime of this resistance and insinuated to the royal ear that the outrage upon the barbers was accompanied with expressions insulting to memory of the departed princess, who it will be remembered was a ] of ]. Akbar, forgetting his vassal's gallant services, commanded that Rao Bhoj should be pinioned and forcibly deprived of his moustache. He might as well have commanded the operation on a tiger. The ]s flew to there arms, the camp was thrown into tumult, and would have soon presented a wide scene of blood-shed, had not the emperor, seasonably repenting of his folly repaired to the ] quarters in person. He expressed his admiration (he might have said his fear) of ] valour, alighted from his elephant to expostulate with the Rao...'' | |||
| :If ] thinks this incident is worthy of being mentioned in his book, ''Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan'', what is wrong in this incident being mentioned on Misplaced Pages? | |||
| :Impumozhi on ] page deleted the name of ] . and then I asked him on his talk page why he did so: . He replied on my talk page : . Then I countered his assertion on his talk page: and till date he has not responded. The reason he did not respond is because he just read some internet site and thought he has complete knowledge on the topic. | |||
| :In another incident he put a tag of ''db-nonsense'' on the article ] : . Then I asked him on the talk page of this article on why he put the CSD tag: . No reasons given till date. Another user, ], had to remove this db-nonsense tag: . Here again Impumozhi had no idea about the subject matter but just because I had created this article he put the db-nonsense tag. | |||
| :Then he has been chiming that I have used ''pamphlets'' to create the ] page. In the reference section of the current rajput page there are chapters, page numbers, publication houses and ISBNs for the books used to create the rajput page. Please click here to see them: http://en.wikipedia.org/Rajput#References. These books are written by eminent historians who have Phd's from universities. To claim there books are useless, without reading a single one of them is a grave insult to these learned people. | |||
| :People like Impumozhi are upset because there version of history is being challenged by what is written in books. When this group is asked to provide there citations they just remain quiet. This is true for Bachman also. He has been pushing references on rajput page of which he has not even read a single one : See here . Is this really scholarship? ] 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 20 February 2006
Copyvio
ImpuMozhi: Please provide the URL from which the information in the copyvio was copied from. Otherwise you will have to revert. --BWD 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Definitive proof was provided. --BWD 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Impumozhi is a liar
He reads a few internet sites and thinks he is an expert on the topic. Here is an exchange between him and me on multiple pages related to the history of rajputs.
Following excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Proposed_decision
<snip>
The "another matter" I wish to bring up is how starkly the "Hindus only side" contrasts with Bachmann on the yardstick of scholarship. I cannot forbear from trying to get something done on a permanent, or atleast long-term basis, about the activities of that group -- activities that can rightly be termed depradations. These depradations are by no means confined to the pages listed here; they now pervade a whole bunch of articles dealing with Indian history and even such somewhat peripheral pages as Max Muller. Read this page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? Leave aside veracity, just the choice of words? Yet nobody dare change one comma or fullstop in that page: it is "owned" by that presiding deity of obduracy, the learned protagonist of every page with a remote "rajput" connection. The Babur page is one of the least controversial in that group, but it bears witness to:
- how the smallest changes are impossible to make on any page ever visited by this group,
- how the very concept of objectivity is alien to them,
- how requests for citations are simply erased,
- how every entry they make is informed by bombastic caste-pride.
Certainly, these people genuinely believe what they write, even on the Hada page -- they would not know otherwise, their views being informed mainly by an execrable set of caste-glorificatory pamphlets. My views on the famous and oft-cited list of 65 reference-books is available here (please scroll to the red-lettered section towards the end of the "changes comparison").
I have previously expressed the same views, for instance here, never to any effect, and I despair of ever obtaining recourse if nothing avails me on this forum. I think it is essential that, rather than confine their final decisions to the Rajput and associated pages, the arbcom should take a broader view of the contributions-record of the protagonists, and encourage the permanent departure of those who simply are not equipped to contribute to an encyclopedia. The sad alternative is to have less belligerent, more bookish people gradually depart WP in despair and disgust. Regards, ImpuMozhi 08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I will have to disagree with Impumozhi. Impu, in my opinion, represents a group which on reading a few internet sites think they are experts on the topic. His claim about Hada's character being funny and un-encyclopaedic (Cut and paste from Impumozhi's comments above: "Read this page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? ") is actually taken from James Tod's Annals and Antiquities page 384 and 385 Vol-II:
- On the death of the queen Joda Bae, Akbar commanded a court mourning; and that all might testify a participation in their master's affliction, an ordinance was issued that all the Rajput chiefs, as well as the Moslem leaders, should shave the moustache and the beard. To secure compliance, the royal barbers had the execution of the mandate. But when they came to quarters of the Hadas, in order to remove these tokens of manhood, they were repulsed with buffets and contumely. Then enemies of Rao Bhoj Hada aggravated the crime of this resistance and insinuated to the royal ear that the outrage upon the barbers was accompanied with expressions insulting to memory of the departed princess, who it will be remembered was a rajputani of Marwar. Akbar, forgetting his vassal's gallant services, commanded that Rao Bhoj should be pinioned and forcibly deprived of his moustache. He might as well have commanded the operation on a tiger. The Hadas flew to there arms, the camp was thrown into tumult, and would have soon presented a wide scene of blood-shed, had not the emperor, seasonably repenting of his folly repaired to the Boondi quarters in person. He expressed his admiration (he might have said his fear) of Hada valour, alighted from his elephant to expostulate with the Rao...
- If James Tod thinks this incident is worthy of being mentioned in his book, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, what is wrong in this incident being mentioned on Misplaced Pages?
- Impumozhi on rajputani page deleted the name of Maharani Gayatri Devi . and then I asked him on his talk page why he did so: . He replied on my talk page : . Then I countered his assertion on his talk page: and till date he has not responded. The reason he did not respond is because he just read some internet site and thought he has complete knowledge on the topic.
- In another incident he put a tag of db-nonsense on the article Hammir Dev Chauhan : . Then I asked him on the talk page of this article on why he put the CSD tag: . No reasons given till date. Another user, Dvyost, had to remove this db-nonsense tag: . Here again Impumozhi had no idea about the subject matter but just because I had created this article he put the db-nonsense tag.
- Then he has been chiming that I have used pamphlets to create the rajput page. In the reference section of the current rajput page there are chapters, page numbers, publication houses and ISBNs for the books used to create the rajput page. Please click here to see them: http://en.wikipedia.org/Rajput#References. These books are written by eminent historians who have Phd's from universities. To claim there books are useless, without reading a single one of them is a grave insult to these learned people.
- People like Impumozhi are upset because there version of history is being challenged by what is written in books. When this group is asked to provide there citations they just remain quiet. This is true for Bachman also. He has been pushing references on rajput page of which he has not even read a single one : See here . Is this really scholarship? Shivraj Singh 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)