User talk:Bsr465

December 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Raju, did not appear constructive and has 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 the 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.

You cannot misrepresent reliable sources just because you believe your version to be "factual". You need to provide reliable sources to verify your version, and our attitude regarding neutrality means that we would then show both opinions, not just the one that you prefer. Sitush (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Martin Urbanec. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gandikota— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to South Asian social groups.The details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, General Sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

∯WBG^converse 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I really cant understand what this message meant....did i edit anything wrong...Ive corrected the things that are factually wrong...my intention is to help as many users ss possible with authentic data so that wiki standards will be maintained. Bsr465 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Navaratri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Garba and Shami

Vijayadashami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shami

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Navaratri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kadamba architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alampur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sources

Historical articles need WP:HISTRS compliant sources including books and journals by academics and historians. Sources from government websites, news portals, etc can't be used. Find proper sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Recruitment Topper is a totally unreliable source. It can't be used for anything in Wikipedia. See WP:RS, WP:RSN. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What!! You've said government websites too were not allowed?? So If you nither believe in Government and Newspapers, could you enlighten me how to contribute data which was written by famous historians of Telangana like B.N Sarma which is not available online?? The information is available in Government textbooks, Government websites but you don't want to accept. So kindly tell how could someone contribute when they particular data is reliable but text copies are not available online?? Bsr465 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand Recruitment topper is unreliable according to you bcoz it's a institute!! But sir, there are district official websites like Mahabubnagar, Narayanpet, Wanaparthy where they openly publish this data i have given on their platform!! Is Wiki meant for learning or for something else?? If someone say the most reliable sources on this world i.e Government as unreliable. Let me know how should I contribute if that part of history is written very few historians and they are not available online!! Bsr465 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal belief. WP:RS and WP:HISTRS are rules that needs to be followed. Who are you going to listen too, a Historian or a govt official, when you try to learn something about history? Government sources are found to be incorrect in many cases. A lot of govt. sources I've encountered talks about myths and puranas and what a particular city /region was known that time. These are not reliable things to mention. And newspapers are not reliable for the same thing, most reporters are not qualified to report such things. So we go by journals and books written by historians and academicians. News sources can only be reliable in particular case like recent renovation, tourism related to historical sites. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia with its own set of rules and guidelines. We can't add everything, it is not a forum. -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, I can understand whatever you say. It's not that I personally have something to enforce. The data published on Government websites is not from Ancient part of history to link with Puranas and Myths..This is recent history and is what taught for the students of post graduation as well for someone who prepares for State Civil Services. Civil servants won't come by reading wrong quotes.. I can get you that WiKi don't accept Government sources, news paper articles in the matter of History!! But most of the history part will be known through excavations that's printed on news paper. The policy i feel is improper!! Anyway I respect your opinion. But please guide to how should I contribute, bcoz I have the rare copy of Historical research Journal by famous Historian B.N Sarma. This is not available online. The only sources available for this data online is Official government sources or News articles. So don't you think in such cases readers are denied for factual information. What could someone do if Historians won't write this part of History(or i could find) and what ever available is present online?? I'm waiting for a sincere solution bcoz I know how I contributed my time to gather that data. Bsr465 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do note that if I'm a disruptive editor, I could have ended my matter here. I do know every platform has its own rules and policy. But you need to understand the main intention of Wiki is knowledge sharing!! The case I've mentioned is genuine as I said Historic general are available only Offline that I had it at present. What ever I could get online is from Government sources or news articles which is as per policy not compilable and the result the denial of true history!! I'm glad to know if you suggest some ways such type of critical problems!! Bsr465 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keeping the discussion in one place, I mean here. I used to get offended and disheartened the same way 10 years ago. You have to edit/discuss and read Wikipedia rules more. Then you will understand why more experienced userso wouldn't share the same view as you. On a different note, Bangalore and Allahabad are not named as Bengaluru and Prayagraj in Wikipedia, while these are the official names of the places. Do you know why? because Wikipedia rule WP:COMMONNAME says so. Wikipedia has its own rules which the community follow above everything else - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a news article about a recent excavation can be added. But it should be a secondary source. I also noticed that the government source(s) you added do not match with the content. For example: You added this source to support Vavilala, doesn't establish a link to the article topic The Reddi Kingdom. It is mentioned alongwith a list of other dynasties including Maurya and Nanda. Similarly Viriyala is not mentioned here. These type of additions are not allowed as per WP:OR, even if we consider the sources to be relevant/reliable to the topic, which it isn't int the first place.

Third, We should not Kakatia era dynasties in an article about Reddi Kingdom. It is irrelevant here. The Reddi Kingdom originated after the fall of Kakatia dynasty. The history section should only keep things directly related to the topic. The only place we can add a list like that is the See also section, which I've kept as per your additions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, I know your contributions to Wiki. You have done so many edits, In fact I've thanked you before for some of your edits. Yes Vaivila, Viriyala are directly related to Reddi Kingdom bcoz they were of Kakatiya era..They were just feudatories of Kakatiyas and the originators of Reddi kingdom too were feudatories before. The Reason I've added them is...I could see they have already written something related to Kakatiya era where theyve mentioned that some of the Reddy were Military related people. My line was just a extension of that like these were the feudatories they were actually intended. So what ever district websites mentioned is actually correct like they have dealt with all the rules d that particular in a continuous time line, but yes they they were not directly related to reddy kingdom but just their co-feudatories in Kakatiya. As I said my line is only continuation of what is already contributed as I thought it would be able to avoid future confusions like who were those military people!! Yes sir, I may not be well experienced editor, but my intentions were just!! But again if it is not going to comply with policy, I'm not going to demand bcoz as I said I've seen your contributions before and I even thanked you!! But you've not addressed my genuine concern like how should someone contribute a data that is published by a well known archaeologist and Historian like B.N Sharma decades before bcoz there is no online version. After so much searching I could get that the last offline copy as said by AVKF book foundation. The book has detailed history of all these feudatories along with incriptional evidences. But as I said im unable to quote it bcoz of lack of online source and believe me he is the pioneer in these historical findings. We do have information available offline but again they were topics of History Graduates printed in Telugu Academy textbooks of states. No much Research have done after B.N Sarma and who so ever gets this data is from his book. That's the exact reason why could not quote this Historical Journal. As I said I'm glad to know if any solution is available for such problems as I could see you were a experienced Wiki editor. Anyway as far as I remember only Recherla feudatories were mentioned in Cynthia Talbot's Precolonial India. If I could able to get that part, I woukd contribute it by the end of this day with that particular book as reference. Please do check that particular edit and I'm ok if you would remove it, if it won't comply with policy or the data is not necessary at that particular context. The reason I've added this data is simple, I thought the information I've gathered from rare book of B.N sharma should be made available to someone, so that it may benefits any one who could research in such topics in future. Bsr465 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vavaila, Viriyala are not* directly related. Bsr465 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Im able to get the sources like Cynthia Tablot mentioning about Recherla cheiefs. I could see it also contain sighting of Cheruku, Viryala, Malyala chiefs...But I think it is appropriate to follow your 3rd point...Like when I've gone through the details now even I'm feeling that it's unnecessary to add these topics in Reddi Kingdom page..So I'm not going to add..I think some other page should be specifically dedicated regarding these Kakatiya era feudatories as they were important in academical point of view. Probably I try that in future as it deals with lots of hard work for gathering such information. I'm thankful for you suggestions and note!! Bsr465 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Well, nice chatting. You can always ask me for suggestions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.Fylind!! I will surely ask you if I have any query regarding Wiki platform. Bsr465 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Regarding the copyright violation in Telangana article, kindly go through WP:COPYVIO guideline. Also phrase it in your own words, but avoid close-paraphrasing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.Flyind!! Bsr465 (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fylind, In Telangana part after I was told that it comes under Copyrights issue ....I've too 2hrs of my late night time to atleast rephrase the Festivals part...You can check that too..They are my own most words...But since it took so long...I've found Arts part to be available on News papers, which I hope was took from Govt data...And I've attached it..I don't know who is claiming copyrights for News papers article information..If it is really problematic...Editors should have removed only Arts section and should not have touched Festivals part which I've wrote in my own words after rephrasing..You can check that too..Anyway I lost interest in contributing to Wikipedia now..We are doing this just for Voluntary activity so as to contribute better information to society that is known to us..but it seems its too much complicated and no one gonna appreciate the time invested by sincere contributors..Ive lost interest in contributions now bcoz of the acts of so called editors like Dianna..Literally my hard work was outrightly deleted with just one click even after part of my contributions are my own words.. Bsr465 (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your addition to Telangana has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. None of these sources are in the public domain, so it's not okay to copy the text. — Diannaa (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused how Democratic governments which provides open data is violation of copyright. Anyway I will frame the data with my own words if it is really a issue. Atleast then don't remove the data before discussion because Telangana is considerably a new state and lot of data is not available on Wiki. I'm investing my time to update Wiki for the beneficial of readers, please don't delete it at one go. Bsr465 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana

Mr. Prolifix, I don't the intention of reverting the edits contributed... You need to understand Cholas were not the major rulers of Telangana...Cholas influence didnot cross River krishna...They waged war according to folklore on during Kakatiya which is not attested by Historical proofs...Where as Rashtrakutas are major players here.. I could see you edit same thing for someone else contribution on same topic too.. Why would we as a contributors lie about our own rulers.. History is something that already happened and is factual... Please verify it yourself which rulers majorly ruled Telanagana...Wikipedia is something also used by students preparing for competitive exams...You can revert but think twice before reverting as misinformation may irk students... I again request you check the history of Telangana properly..I'm not going edit it back because my intention is to benefit with true historical sequence...Just think whether your edits sounds true.. Thank you Bsr465 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Reddy dynasties and states for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Reddy dynasties and states is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Reddy dynasties and states until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MRRaja001 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Patient Zero. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Ramappa Temple—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Patient Zero^talk 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patient Zero, I did not contribute to the article, actually i just reverted the edits made by anonymous user to the original data. Since there is a continuous edits, i just added a reference. Hope you should have observed that before reverting back my contributions. Bsr465 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]