User talk:Adamantine123

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 31.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

November 2024

Hello, I noticed your revision on Bhumihar where you reverted my edit and reinstated previous version which was based on dubious source. Kindly explain how is book by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya is unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya was an Indian historian not some British civil servant whose sources are unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Please do not say that all Indian historians who existed in Raj era are unreliable too. Please do not revert my edits in baseless way. Thank you. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added were British Raj era sources and according to WP:RAJ, they are not considered as WP:RS for caste articles. The sources you removed were modern sources and they were not dubious as you are saying. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sources by Indian historians who wrote during British era are also unreliable? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read User:Sitush/CasteSources for more information on sources to be used on caste article and why some sources are banned. Adamantine123 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123, This user is blocked as a confirmed sock! ®asteem Talk 22:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the talks on Talk: Bhumihar is this closed now. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes closed now ®asteem Talk 01:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123 Also check this I made a revert of Ratnahastin's edits[1] suddenly a user appeared and made a revert with the falls narrative that I conduct an edit war? Only a single revert make any sense to be categorize as an edit war?[2] then he left a Retaliatory edit warning's notice [3], then another retaliatory warning [4]. Then (Abhishek0831996) on Talk: Political marriages in India left a note with "provoking or offensive words " Shameless attempt"[5] then later he removed the offensive word.[6] Interestingly, LukeEmily's, Ekdalian's & now your talk page has similar scenarios of Retaliatory warnings?, making me wonder if there's a larger issue at play. ®asteem Talk 21:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should leave it to admins as I know many of them are observing the activities of these editors and we should just avoid violating WP:3RR and making personal comments. Apart from that nothing seems to be your concern if you are using right sources. If someone is making retaliatory moves their edits are being saved and can be used as diff at appropriate platform in future. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123 Agree! I'll leave a comment on Talk:Rajput you may like to leave your opinion. ®asteem Talk 08:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dympies (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I am aware of this notice and why this is here by the way. Which edit of mine made you think that you should put it here. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caste is mentioned in the Indiatimes source, which is ICTF compliant. This is the reason I didn't remove when the IP added it. Tt is one of the two RS that show up, but the text is written by the same person, and is also a recent (post-death) source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, may be I missed that. Adamantine123 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:50.81.237.112

Adamantine, please look more carefully before you roll something back and warn an editor: they explained their edit in an edit summary, and it was valid. Please see WP:RBREVOKE; thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. I saw a lot of ip disruption recently and that's why this one appeared to me one such edit. I will consider your advice from next time. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kushwaha Shashi Bhushan Mehta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palamu. 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) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]