Misplaced Pages

Mongo's Page

Thanks man. I still have some "Wiki-itis" or whatever from February, but i'll keep on dipping my toes in the pool, i'm glad to see you as well. Karmafist 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes of the Punjab

Dear Sir, since you are one of the most respected Indian administrators on Misplaced Pages, I am asking your opinion on this festering dispute that has developed between myself and Satbir Singh since the past few days.

The facts of the matter are like this:

I created a template called Castes and Tribes of the Punjab with a view to studying the caste and tribal groups that exist in what was the ancient Punjab region (Punjab (Pakistan), Punjab (India), Haryana and Himachal Pradesh). My intention, unlike any Ibbetsons, Todds or Cunninghams was to study these groups from a purely anthropological perspective sans any controversy so that people visiting this portal would get to know about the huge mosaic that my province (I am a Punjabi) is.

I started with a few groups. But soon enough the groups began to increase. For the sake of brevity, I grouped them under Categories. As the template evolved, I learnt not to name any category speculatively.

The final categories were:

1. Brahmin groups.
2. Dalit groups.
3. Jat clans.
4. Khatris and other groups.
5. Rajput clans.
6. Shaikhs and other groups.
7. Tarkhans and other groups.
8. Others (groups to which i could not attribute any specific status).

In the last (Others), I also included groups such as Kamboj, Khasa, Ahir and Gujjar. However, Satbir Singh separated them and bunched them under a new category called "Surviving Ancient Kshatriya Tribes".

Since that day, a revert war has been on between the two of us. According to Satbir, these groups such as the Ahirs (the ancient Abhiras), the Gujjars (Gurjaras), the Khas (the Khasas), the Kamboj (Kambojas) and Yadav (Yadavas) are ancient Kshatriya tribes mentioned in a number of ancient Sanskrit texts.

My own personal opinion is that all this is true. However, some points must be noted:

1. The Varna System is a topic subject to a lot of controversy and dispute. I have been noticing this in recent weeks. Pages such as Khatri, Rajput, Kayastha and Bhumihar have been vandalised because many people don't agree with the Varna status of these groups.
2. If the Ahirs, the Gujjars, the Khasaa, the Kambojas and the Yadavas are Kshatriya groups, then so are the Rajputs, Jats, Khatris, Tarkhans et al. I did not create a category entitled "Kshatriya groups" in the first place because I knew I was treading on soft ground. All the above mentioned castes claim Kshatriya status. But we all know, how disputable these claims are.
3. The rigmarole that is the Varna System is known to us all. For example, the Jats, who in the Vedic and Mythological periods were workers should be placed in the Shudra Category under the Varna System. But many Jats clans consider themselves the equal and perhaps the superior of Rajputs as adhrents of Kshatriya Dharma. My own caste, the Khatris and related groups such as Aroras claim Kshatriya status. But we have seen on the Khatri page as to what became of that claim.
4. Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs are considered to be OBCs in most Indian states inspite of their being the descendants of ancient Abhiras, Gurjaras and Yadus. There is a controversy raging on the Yadav page presently if I am not wrong, on the status of the caste.

Taking all these points into consideration and being aware of the fact that there are users (say Sanjay Mohan and Holywarrior, who have caused great disputes on various caste pages, I proposed categories such as "Kambojs and related groups" (Kamboj, Kamboja, Kamboh and Khasa) and "Gujjars and realted groups" (Ahirs, Gujjars, Dhangars and Bakarwals). But Satbir Singh and another user named Sze cavalry01 objected to it. They returned to "Ancient Kshatriya Tribes". I did a little compromise by making it "Ancient Warrior Tribes", which I later realised would also be POV. Therefore, I changed it to just "Ancient Tribes" - A completely unspeculative term.

However, Satbir Singh does not agree. He calls it a "gross suppression of known historical facts", "a crime against history" and "a political agenda" and has termed me a "Vandal". I have put forward my points. But both of us are yet to agree.

I have fighting a revert war with him for almost a week now. Have a look at the template's history page and Satbir Singh's talk page to get a complete idea of the whole fracas.

This fight has become downright silly. I surely don't expect myself to spend my time, money and energy on such a silly matter. And I am sure neither does the other party.

Therefore, I urge you to have a look at the whole matter. Whatever is you opinion would be agreeable to me.

Regards. Rajatjghai 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an "SOS". I have just finished another "bout" of a revert war with Satbir Singh. Please answer this post as soon as you can. Rajatjghai 03:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, as of now, protected the page to prevent this major revert war. Please discuss changes and reach consensus on the template's talk page.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will come back after studying the matter. Regards. --Bhadani 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to form any opinion as of now. --Bhadani 08:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient India

your behaviour is becoming disruptive now; before you do more moves and copy-paste-moves, argue your position on talk and seek consensus. I see no reason to have an Ancient India article separate from Kingdoms of Ancient India, and I have explained my reasons in detail. If you are unhappy about this, present your arguments, or ask for peer review, but do not just move stuff around out of spite. dab (ᛏ) 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that no amount of consensus can change a truth. I feel that you do not desire to have a separate page for Ancient India for extraneous reasons. I would, therefore, put up the page for deletion after restoring the contents removed by you. However, I shall support for Keep. In case, you find me disruptive, your behavior is equally disruptive and disturbing too. I request your cooperation to resolve the issue. --Bhadani 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Other comments: - - - --Bhadani 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Mr.Bhadani I have been with the wiki for nearly 6 months now and apart from a few irritants-being blocked because of someone having the same ISP address-found it most informative.

An idea just occured to me and I should value your opinion as a senior here at the Wiki.I have made enquiries and it appears that in order to make a valid nomination for Nobel Peace Prize,one has to be either a professor of history or a professor of literature or a previous laureate.I believe that Misplaced Pages has brought the world together like no other project-knowledge based pooling of ideas to bring the world closer.After the Nobels for this year are announced,they would be soliciting nominations for next year-and I belive we should try and get Jim Wales nominated.I have already spoken to a Fellow of Royal Historical Society and he would be ready to nominate but I should appreciate your view.I also noticed that Misplaced Pages came for high praise from two Nobel Laureates on the BBC programme Nobel Minds-viz.Barry Marshall and Roy Glauber.You may write to me on my email address if you wish-venkatradhakrishnan2000@yahoo.com.au

Regards Venkat(Vr 06:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

It is really nice to listen from you, after a long long gap. I do appreciate your views. I shall be sending you an e-mail. I also regret that I could not do anything as regards creation of the stubs as suggested by you. Still, I do hope to create few stubs based on your feedback. Regards abd all the best. --Bhadani 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us set the ball rolling for Noble Peace Prize for the President of Wikimedia Foundation.

• Noble Peace Prize
• Qualified Nominators – Peace
• Eligibility

--Bhadani 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Wiki-Birthday

Thank you to all who wished me a happy wikibirthday! It did not go unappreciated! --D-Day 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)