Jump to content

User talk:Owsert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Owsert! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! --    L o g  X   14:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Raj sources

[edit]

Hi, we try to avoid Raj sources - eg: in this edit of yours - because their abilities regarding history, identification etc of communities was so poor. As a rule, they just accepted whatever they were told and then moaned about being told something different later. One of the worst aspects of Raj ethnography was, of course, the discredited belief in scientific racism. While Denzil Ibbetson was more questioning than, say, James Tod, he is not reliable and nor are any of the present-day gazetteers than are basically reprints of the Raj versions. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I have a little info about these sources. I found it in Arora, thought it may be relevant in article Khatri, so added it. -Owsert (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid that there are a lot of poor articles about Indian castes/communities. Some of us have been trying to clean them up over the last couple of years or more but it is a slow job because there is a lot of disruptive editing, misrepresentation of sources and even outright fabrication. It got so bad that WP:GS/Caste was introduced - the wider Wikipedia community got fed up of the sheer number of poor edits that were going on. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ankush Bains, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hamirpur and Hamirpur district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pasting within Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi, you were wrong to do this. It is perfectly ok to copy/paste from one Wikipedia article to another provided that the edit summary attributes it, which it did. In this particular instance, not only did the summary attribute but it was me who wrote the passage & me who copied it over!

That said, one problem with people copy/pasting even with attribution is that they do not always check the information that they are copying. Unless they wrote it themselves, you can't really rely on it being accurate without going through the sources that are cited. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit in the same article also seems to be incorrect, unfortunately. The article already said that some people consider the Kachwaha rulers of Jaipur to have been Rajput but that elsewhere things were different. We can't extrapolate from one place to an entire country etc because that is original research. We also can't ignore reliable sources that refute the Rajput claim.
It is because these clan and varna statuses tend to be so complex that often it is best to discuss them in the body rather than make potentially extravagant claims in the lead section. Indeed, the consensus is that we do not mention varna in lead sections because the situation in that respect is so bad (arguably, mainly because of British Raj ethnographers but that is another story!) . - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit is rather bizarre. You say that it is unsourced but it clearly is in fact very well sourced. Furthermore, the article already explained the Kachwaha/Kushwaha connection and thus it is not irrelevant as you claimed. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You say here that the paragraph is unsourced and seems like spam. That paragraph is in the lead and does not require a source because the very first paragraph of the article body refers to it and is sourced. Lead sections summarise articles and more often than not there is no need to have citations in the lead precisely because the more detailed statements in the body should be sourced. The most common exception to the rule is when a point might be considered controversial. WP:LEAD explains. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I know that you mean well but you clearly have a conflict of interest with regard to Rajput-related articles, which are in any event controversial subjects and subject to general sanctions. As such you probably should not even be editing the things.

However, if you don't understand what is said at WP:Overcategorisation then please can you refrain from meddling with categories on those articles. Categorising is one of the most confusing aspects of Wikipedia and I'm afraid that you seem not to have grasped how they work yet. Watch what others do, listen if they revert you etc and learn from that. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Kachwaha, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kachhwaha page

[edit]

Hey i just saw how the Kachhwaha page has been completely vandalised using some using some source which refers to a peasant community who use the clan name of Kushwaha, for this the editors have decided to ignore a sea of reliable sources including Imperial Mughal texts. How can all this nonsense be undone ? Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It cannot be undone unless you can show that the source is not reliable. What you can do is add alternate points of view provided that they satisfy our policies and guidelines. And since you seem not to understand WP:NOTVAND, I think you should perhaps read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before trying that. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tikka Sangram Singh and Sitush

Please keep the discussion on at User talk:Sitush only. -Owsert (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, why the heck do you suggest that this discussion should be on my talk page? The correct venue is the article talk page. Secondly, I've just reverted your page move for that article. You'll have to discuss first and then propose a move if you think you have a chance of gaining consensus for it. Creating POV forks, coupled with many of your recent poor contributions, is not going to gain you many friends. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Kachwaha (clan)

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Kachwaha (clan). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Kachwaha. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kachwaha – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sitush (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kachwaha. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.


Move discussions need to take place on the article's talk page, not an editor's talk page. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owsert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that I am a sock of Iamtrhino. Firstly, I want to clarify that Iamtrhino and Mrpontiac1 are different users and both of these socks were mistakenly associated. When I was very new to WP, I started editing without reading its rules and regulations. Unfamiliar with WP rules, I had been blocked for 7 days for copyright violation of images. Instead of waiting for my block period to be over, I created two more accounts. Thats the biggest mistake I did, for which I can apologize a hundred times. But what I got for this mistake was a very harsh punishment. I was blocked permanently. I appealed for an unblock, but everything went in vain. After this unfortunate incident, I created further more accounts and all my accounts continued to get blocked as sock accounts. I know that whatever I did was wrong, but I had no other option. I am fed up of this sock-puppetry. Now I am here with a mercy petition. Though I can be called as a sock user, but now I feel that I am quite mature and experienced for editing on WP. I just appeal the administrators to give me another chance to prove that I am not that old editor, who broke the disciplinary rule of WP. I have changed now. Now, I am very much aware of WP policies. I just want to return on WP as a good man. I will try my best to follow all the rules and policies of the WP if I get another chance.

Decline reason:

There's a whole page of warnings above that show you still have problems with edit warring, disruptive editing, sourcing, and attribution. I would suggest looking at the standard offer, and coming back after six months with a more specific plan on how you'll change. Kuru (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@ Kuru

Please don't make your opinion from above warnings and suggestions on my talk page as all of them come from Sitush, who is not an admin. Sitush has an old habit of warning and suggesting other members. I agree that he is quite experienced as compared to me. I believe that nobody is perfect on WP as there is always scope for learning more and more about vast wiki policies. But what main points I have learnt throughout my journey is that edit warring should be avoided, the matters should be solved at talk pages and sock-puppetry should definitely be avoided.

Standard offer of six months seem too long. Please see if there is any other possibility. -Owsert (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not evade your block to post messages on my talk page. This does not help your situation. Kuru (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting on your talk page. But I did that as I thought my reply here had gone un-noticed. -Owsert (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owsert&oldid=1063822875"