This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article was redirected by Jethwarp in 2013 and remained so — for nine years — till September 2022 when Aciram copied content from Rai dynasty — written by me — in toto and started a page. I restored the redirect and, lo, Pataliputra reverted me! I had missed that the article used to be a redirect and in light of the involved content duplication (and WP:STABLE), there need to be an explicit consensus in favor of a standalone article. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language you use here, does not testify to your good intention. A second opinion is necessary to determine if this article is to remain.
She is a separate person. The text describing her is big enough to require an article of her own rather than to be included in the article of her spouse. Semi-legendary characters of famous stories may have their own articles when they are relevant and have this amount of text. A descision made several years ago may no longer be applicable.
You have given no reason to why she should not have her own article. Instead, you use what appears to be aggressive, arrogant and contemptuous language, which does not give a good impression of you as a serious contributor. It certainly does not give a non-bias impression of you. If you are emotionally involved in an article, it can make you bias and therefore not suitable to get involved with it. Rather, you should stay away from it.
You appear to believe, that a person who wrote an article have copyright to it. This is in fact a misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules. This article is not yours. You do not have any author copyrights to it, nor any right to decide alone what should hapen to it. Wikipedia rules allowes copying within Wikipedia. It is not against the rules to do so. Nor does that act justify your emotional language.
Your last redirect was reverted, and the editor, as far as I recall, informed you that Wikipedia does not allow you ownership of this article.
A second opinion is necessary before this article is redicrected. I advise you to not get involved in it if you are unable to maintain polite neutrality.
And, I am not claiming my "copyright". Rather, I am highlighting that you are duplicating content without any good (imo) reason — you just copied my content almost-verbatim without even bothering to fit it to a biography! TrangaBellam (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid your use of language is too emotional for me to engage in a conversation with you. It lacks civility and good will, and appear aggressive and condescending to me. Because of this reason, I will not engage in conversation with you. I have no interest to engage in any type of feud. Our direct contact therefore begins, and ends, here. Have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language @TrangaBellam is using seems to be normal English to me.. Jokes aside, it doesn't appear even in the slightest to me that TrangaBellam is "emotionally connected" to the subject by his above as well as below comments. Neither does he appear "aggressive" or "arrogant". The article seems to be talking more about the end of the Rai dynasty than about the subject and also more importantly it lacks notability, the most important criterion for the existence of an article, a simple google books search shows that "Rani Suhandi" gives only 32 hits. PadFoot (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
