User talk:CharlesWain

Are you going to appeal the block?

I see Dear Debasish has after repeated urging chosen not to make a formal unblock request, and is instead attacking an opponent. DD, your next post on this page ought to be a response to this question of mine. If instead you continue to attack others, I will remove your access to editing this page. Ekdalian, I ask you kindly to please stop posting here. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have edited the disputed article a couple of times recently. Ekdalian posted on my talk page. I ignored both the talk page message and the article. But later I found out I have been blocked without giving warning. Look I use Wikipedia for reading articles, not to edit it. You may keep the blocks for 6 days more, If you think I have been engaged in edit warring. But please check with the IP address and the account, before accusing me of abusing multiple accounts. My earnest request to you Bishonen to remove assumptive accusation of using sock to abuse from my talk page. I have no history like that. You may keep the block if you think that's necessary. Please consider that. Dear Debasish (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not blocked before. I don't know how to put formal unblock request. But if you know how to remove inappropriate input from my talk page or there is procedure for formally putting request, please let me know @Bishonen . Dear Debasish (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you before: "Would you like me to put what you say above into the unblock template for you?" That is, what you said here. I'm sorry, I don't know how to put it any more clearly. Would you like me to put what you said here into the unblock template, so that it becomes a formal unblock request? All you have to say is yes or no. Or would you perhaps like to write some other text, below, that you want to be your formal unblock request? If you do, please put quote marks round it so that I'm sure exactly what text it is you want me to make into a formal unblock request. Bishonen | tålk 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I think I am unable to make my point clearly. As I told in my previous post - "No" I can't and also don't want to put formal unblock request. But if it's possible, please remove the part where you're accusing me of "abusing multiple accounts" to block me from my talk page, but you can keep the block citing "edit warring" reason, if that's what it is. And If it's not possible, please ignore. Dear Debasish (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DD, you're free to remove what you wish from your talkpage yourself. Not to change other people's posts, but to remove them. That means you can remove the whole of my block notice, and any other post or discussion here, but not part of my block notice. Bishonen | tålk 07:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that I can edit my talk page. As you see It's obvious I have edited the disputed page a couple of times. But you have also agreed to the assumptive accusation of that confirmed user of using IP address and sock. will you please let me know how can you term it "obvious"? It's clear to me that you haven't checked or can't check technically whether two accounts or an account and IP address are related or not. Probably You have just deduced it. Isn't It? Am I wrong about that? I think If I put formal unblock request, no other admin can unblock me without first consulting you. So my request would go in vain if you're not convinced. So I have chosen not to put request. But if there's is any way available to admins to check technically whether two accounts or IP address are related or not without zero chance of mistake. I will put formal request. Please let me know. Thank you.

Dear Debasish (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I can't check technically. Only CheckUsers can. Other admins can only block per WP:DUCK. However, it seems a little meaningless to ask a CheckUser in this case, since WP:MEAT also applies; meaning that it also counts as sock puppetry to ask another person or persons to support your edits. So it's never with zero chance of mistake. But since you insist on your innocence, I have asked a CheckUser privately. You may hear from them. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I have repeatedly denied charge of sock and meat puppetry . Neither I have abused multiple accounts nor anyone. I have just edited a couple of times but haven't disobeyed warning. Thank you for asking the check-User to check. Dear Debasish (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also totally support for taking strict action against the accounts who use inappropriate language to attack others. Check their IP too to take strict action. That cannot be tolerated. Dear Debasish (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard from the CheckUser, who found the account Hakka noodle patty, which supported you at Mahishya, to be a sock of a different user, Waked Bold Ambushed. I retain some suspicion of meatpuppetry. But it's only a suspicion at this stage, and I have unblocked you, with a note in the block log that I'm withdrawing the accusation of sock puppetry (though not of persistent insertion of unsourced content; please don't do that again). Happy editing, Dear Debasish! Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I have openly and repeatedly told you to involve check-User and take action against the sock and IP involved. I wonder how can you have any suspicion anymore. I have also told before I don't support abusing like that. And as for persistent editing I am asserting whatever content I have added by reverting is in my good knowledge and I've added in good faith. This content was there for a long time and there was a source in introduction section too for long. Multiple senior editors and even admin came in between but that section were untouched by them. I will consider adding that again If I find proper source.It would have been nice if I was given reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking action against me based on accusation and suspicion. Thank you Bishonen. Regards, Dear Debasish (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Mondal moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Soma Mondal, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DMySon (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given two reliable and verifiable sources. Should I add more website links? Because there are many articles on her on different websites. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DMySon I have added more independent reliable sources. And added contents too. Please review and consider . Thank you. Dear Debasish (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Bengali Brahmins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are sufficiently explained and I opened talk page discussion before you sent me this. Dear Debasish (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Debasish, please indent your replies with colons to make talkpages more readable for others, thank you. If you look at edit mode, you will see how other people do it. And while you have opened a talkpage discussion, it's not a discussion of your reverts. Do please discuss instead of edit warring. Discussion in edit summaries is not enough. Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen for your suggestion. I want to raise two issues- 1. Bengali Brahmin article has been allowed to stay with traditional accounts and without proper citations for long. 2. Two non-brahmin 'higher caste' articles have been provided with wikilinks of bengali brahmin. I have checked other brahmin and higher castes' and dominant castes' articles of other states of India, No such wikilinks of current distinct castes have been given in lead sections. Apparently some kayastha and Baidya are cunningly doing POV push.

The behaviour of certain confirmed users are very discouraging to initiate any type of changes and improvements. Thank you ! Dear Debasish (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I link again to WP:indent, since you ignored my first suggestion. Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry Bishonen . I was unable to understand your suggestion. I am unaware of many technicalities. Is it alright now?

What do you think about the issues raised above? Thanks and regards Dear Debasish (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am gradually getting WP:indent thing. Bishonen thank you.Dear Debasish (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weel.. you add one colon for each reply; thus, if my post has one colon, your next reply should have two colons, and so on. This creates a pleasing "staircase" which makes it easy to see at a glance where one person's comment stops and another's starts. As for your points above, sorry, I haven't the time to study that article in any depth. Just remember the main point of the warning you received: don't edit war even if you're sure you're right. As you can see, there can be different opinions about it. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soma Mondal (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fade258 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soma Mondal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Soma Mondal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fade258 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dear Debasish! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fade258 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: I have added two more sources. It is clear that the subject easily meets WP:GNG. Can you review again? Dear Debasish (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will review. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: Reminding you again. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first you have to submit your draft again then I will review it. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soma Mondal has been accepted

Soma Mondal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am glad I am able to make little contributions to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I will try making quality contributions in future too. Thanks again !Dear Debasish (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding ongoing dispute related to inclusion of a statement in Origin section. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Pala Empire".The discussion is about the topic Pala Empire.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Ekdalian (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from book by R. C. Majumdar

Hello CharlesWain! Your additions to Varendra have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why Saradananda, 1978 is insufficiently reliable source on Ramakrishna article

Hello,

You made an edit saying Saradananda, Swami (1978). Sri Ramakrishna, the great master is an insufficiently reliable source. Could you please explain? As far I know, this is one of the primary sources of information on Ramakrishna being written by his direct disciple. RamasSquirrel (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RamasSquirrel, please read WP:Primary.CharlesWain (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Just read it. The usage in Ramakrishna article from the primary source is straightforward and doesn't depend on any analysis, interpretation etc. In that case, it's use is not against the policy. Do you feel otherwise? RamasSquirrel (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing or planning to add, RamasSquirrel?CharlesWain (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In another vision following Ramakrishna's birth, his mother saw a strange tall person lying in the bed instead of the baby Ramakrishna.^{[better source needed]}

The above line was added by me and you had added the 'better source needed' comment regarding the source of this line, which is Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master (1978). So I wanted to understand the reason behind the comment. RamasSquirrel (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rani Rashmoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalyani. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Check the mistakes in Hare Krishna Konar

I am new to Wikipedia but know many facts about Hare Krishna Konar and want to recorrect the article of Hare Krishna Konar but I am unable to do it, so can you please check grammatical or other mistakes in that article please do the needfulls. Privetwik (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Privetwik, whenever you add contents, please give citations. The article has multiple issues - grammar, spelling, sentence structure etc. A large part of the article is unsourced, and the style of writing in many sections doesn't suit encyclopaedia. I will work later.You make correct the mistakes and improve the article, if you want.CharlesWain (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thank You very much to you. Privetwik (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vyas Smriti

According to Vyas Smriti Kayasthas are shudra. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shibakali Mondal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shibakali Mondal, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibakali Mondal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baishya saha are baniyas

Hello charles why are you editing that false propaganda that pours a bad light on sahas . Sahas are baniyas they are buisnessman of bengal . Sahasworld (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and request for guidance

Respected sir, I'm new to Wikipedia Wisher08 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I observed that a edit I had made in the Mahishya page got reversed by another user. I just want to know if the process I followed while making that edit did not align with the correct process in anyway. I feel you would be able to clarify my doubt Wisher08 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wisher08, Your statement is correct, but the source you added as citation was a blog which is considered unreliable. Read WP:RS. Thanks and regards,-CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. You guidance is highly esteemed. Wisher08 (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshardham (New Jersey)

Thanks for your contributions to the Swaminarayan Akshardham page. I noticed, though, that your recent edits are heavily focused on the lawsuit, which gives the article an unbalanced feel. Wikipedia guidelines emphasize a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) to ensure topics are covered fairly. The lawsuit is already mentioned thoroughly, so focusing just on that without expanding other sections makes the article seem one-sided. The talk page had previously decided to keep the lawsuit out of the introduction and as seen with the recent talk section about it, the consensus is that it ruins the balance of the article and pushes a non NPOV view. Ram112313 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]