User talk:SatoruVijnani

Hi SatoruVijnani! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank You. I'm still figuring stuff out. SatoruVijnani (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hi, SatoruVijnani. The web site Medium is not a reliable source. Please stop adding citations to it. Mgnbar (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

At Pythagorean theorem you cited LinkedIn. That's not a reliable source either. Mgnbar (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem is know in India as Baudhyana - Pythagoras Theorem. I only want to acknowledge that is is not solely attributed to Pythagoras. It is accepted by most institutions that Baudhyana did develop it before Pythagoras and some have added his name to the theorem. (More reliable sources provided)

So could you undo your edit back? SatoruVijnani (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Pythagoras was not the first person to discover the theorem. There are many prior discoveries around the world. And this article should treat them fairly. That why I said, in my edit summary, that the History section should be chronological. I support that part of your editing. :)

The issue is that you're adding information without citation, or (what's arguably worse) with citation to sources that do not meet the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For example, you need to find the sources that were used to write the Medium article, and cite those sources (assuming they're reliable). Or you need to use established texts about non-European mathematics, such as The Crest of the Peacock by G. G. Joseph. Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the sources I sited above (PDFs) reliable? SatoruVijnani (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the reliable source policy, and I don't want to give you incorrect advice, that causes you to waste your editing time. So please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Mgnbar (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No. The first is an 8th grade math textbook. The others are from what appear to be predatory journals or journals of such low-quality that they are indistinguishable from predatory journals. One of the sources you used, this India Today link, is also emphatically wrong; Baudhayana does not predate Plimpton 322, saying that he discovered the Pythagorean theorem is just nationalist shit flinging.

In English, the Pythagorean theorem is most commonly known as...the Pythagorean theorem. The page does not solely attribute it to Pythagoras, but mentions its use by Babylonians, Egyptians, and indeed, ancient Indians (in the Śulbasūtras). wound theology◈ 22:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No one here is changing the name of the article Pythagorean theorem (I hope). To do so would be a violation of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. But increasing the non-European content is great — as long as it reflects the reliable sources. Mgnbar (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not proposing a name change but only an addition of one that shares credit for the discovery of the theorem. I am trying to do this because I see Wikipedia pages where Indian contributions (especially in mathematics and physics, even with the original texts still preserved) are reduced to a single paragraph while the people who spread it to the rest of the world are given more importance and detail (e.g.: Sine and cosine#History, Trigonometry#History). I am not asking to reduce their contribution. It was because of them the ideas and theories travelled to the rest of the world. But I am trying to provide a little more appreciation and importance to the original contributors. Please don't get the impression that I am trying to push nationalistic ideas. I swear I am not. You guys are more knowledgeable and experienced than me and I believe you know how much India has contributed but, here in Wikipedia, it is often left out or treated as too spiritual or lacking a proper timeline. I am trying my best to get better sources, but I don't exactly where to look. I just started here. I am not a mathematician or a physicists, yet, and I started this account to give proper credit to those deserve it. So if anyone is willing to help me, please do. SatoruVijnani (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that the link from give proper credit to those deserve it links to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I very much implore you to actually read that page, because it states emphatically that we are not here to right great wrongs. It is an incorrect use of Wikipedia to do such. Not that this isn't a noble cause, but that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. We reflect high-quality English sources, which are necessarily going to reflect the state of English scholarship on a topic.

In either case, the transmission of an idea is often given more weight than the origin because...well, technological history is the history of transmission and innovation. Hence the history of the sine function (as an example) mostly covers its origin in India, transmission to Arabic speakers, and then transmissions to Latin. wound theology◈ 22:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

First, read this. The majority of your edits appear to be attempts to right great wrongs, particularly about English names being used for South and West Asian topics. Please understand that English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, and that names in articles reflect the most common English names for the benefit of our readers.

Second, please read the WP:RS (reliable sources) policy. If you want to add information about ancient Indian mathematicians, please do so, but your edits need to reflect high-quality sources and scholarship, and give a balanced view of the topic without undue weight. wound theology◈ 22:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to change Buddhism, which is an exonym to Buddha Dharma (the endonym) and similarly Zoroastrianism to Mazdayasna, while explicitly stating "..... more commonly know by its exonym [X]" . I did this because, here, the format is "Shinto (神道, Shintō; Japanese pronunciation: [ɕiꜜn.toː]), also called Shintoism" and not the other way around. I acknowledge the fact that this is the English Wikipedia, but both names are in English and the exonym is clearly stated to be the more common name by which people of Europe and Americas know about it.

So could you please revert your edits? SatoruVijnani (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Buddha Dharma is not an endonym; the vast majority of Buddhists refer to Buddhism by various local endonyms (in my school, that would be Bukkyō 佛教). Theravada Buddhists don't use Sanskrit as a liturgical language at all, so they especially would not call it Buddha Dharma.

Likewise, Mazdayasna is not an endonym either; it is a rough transliteration of an Avestan term. Zoroastrians today use the term مزدیسنا, which is pronounced something like mozdisna. Clearly related, but different words. Likewise Christians by and large do not call Jesus Yehoshua or Yeshua, nor earlier forms which reflect liturgical languages (Iesu, for example).

The difference with Islam and Shintō is that these names were changed in academia and larger society. Now they are more common than their outdated alternatives. This has not happened for Buddhism or Zoroastrianism; and it is unlikely to happen for the former because it is actually an okay calque of Buddha Dharma and Bukkyō, for that matter.

Most importantly here, read WP:OTHER. wound theology◈ 22:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Fact Check

Zalaraz (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

These edits are unacceptable, read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and stop promoting a fringe POV. Zalaraz (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC) Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 2026 FIFA World Cup, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Annh07 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Since football is the official name of the sport and also the original, most common and widely used name for the sport and also considering that the matches are being held at countries that call it by a different name since they don't want to confuse it with their own sport Gridiron which they call football, can't we get the best of both by using "football (soccer)" in the aforementioned article. SatoruVijnani (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been and is being discussed at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup/Archive 6#Use of the term ‘soccer’ and Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup#Reiteration of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN; you can contribute your opinion there. Annh07 (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

They closed Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup/Archive 6#Use of the term ‘soccer’ SatoruVijnani (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)