User talk:Utcursch/archive/44

Archives: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

---

Indica (Megasthenes)

the source is same reference no.15, book of J. W. McCrindle 1877, page no 38. DR. AMIT KUMAR SAXENA

Dheerajmpai23

Hello Utkarsh, I have made the necessary changes according to your suggestion. instead of deleting the fake content I have kept it. But have clarified it as a misconception and added relevant citations for the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Utcursch!

Happy New Year!

Utcursch,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Same to you! utcursch | talk 14:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Help!

Happy New Year, 2019, Utcursch. I made a proposal here, but all the permutations and combinations have been rejected by another editor and so, I thought that someone experienced can only add it. Please add what is proposed there to the article in a way that is acceptable according to the rules. It was copied from the List of fatwas article, from the section titled, "Fatwas against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and ISIS". I also wrote about the Trump administration withdrawing aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter-terrorism, but it has been removed as can be seen here. Please modify and add that back to the article in a way that others will accept it, according to the rules. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider dropping a note at WT:IND and WT:PAK to get a third opinion. utcursch | talk 17:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I did that, but did not get a response. Please make time and do the needful. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, obviously you don't have a consensus there. Try an RfC. utcursch | talk 16:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Udit Narayan page vandalism

@Utcursch:AN264 is back with a new account user:Ap2019 and he's spamming the same edits as the previous account and also creating another Bimlesh Adhikari article. Please take a look if you have time.Thekua (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Will get blocked soon. utcursch | talk 19:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong with the way I used a template

There is something wrong with the way I used a template, which can be seen here. Please correct it. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been used as a reference, further below in that article on Bangalore.-Karumari (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you've already figured it out. utcursch | talk 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it still shows a "|page =27}}", please correct it. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please also answer my question here.-Karumari (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that the book you cited is a PediaPress book -- it is simply a collection of Wikipedia articles, and not acceptable per WP:CIRCULAR. utcursch | talk 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Misposting

Someone misposted to your Archive 43 on 29 December. I have removed it but see here. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at it. utcursch | talk 14:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think they're going to be blocked shortly anyway. They're in trouble at Commons, had problems at the Tamil WP and have been like a bull in a china shop here. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Another sock of Ua7r

@Utcursch, Bbb23, and Acroterion: Please take a look at NvAp. They have also edited Draft:Bimlesh Adhikari, just like other socks of Ua7r. They also edited pages related to Indian singers. They have been pushing POV on various pages and also adding wrong tags to various pages just like Ua7r socks. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article & possible sock

Hi Utcursch,

I recently reported another suspected sock of Lucyintheskywithdada, the same individual that has disrupted the Lekraj Kripilani page in the past.

I get the feeling that I am the only editor left watching the Brahma Kumaris page so I was wondering if you could possibly add it to your watchlist.

Given his somewhat vocal disdain for anyone he can label as being a "Brahma Kumari" editor as per this comment I would be grateful if there were some unaffiliated editors around to deny him the pretext for a battle, and also prevent him from personalising any battle.

Many thanks, Bksimonb (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 24.65.154.39

Sir, this user needs to be blocked again for personal attacks. Check this edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Will keep a watch on this one. utcursch | talk 00:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Kindly do so. I got him blocked yesterday though. Check this please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User report

lovSLif (talk · contribs · count) just a report on this user, who have have moved pages and changed the pallava king names from varman to varma in past few months, He has Moved all the Pallava king pages and template from varman to varma without any consensus just based on poor sources like School books, textbooks and kinda some fake citations. Right now I have reverted them and moved them back to the original page name. Thank you Panda619 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I have moved the pages according to the original names of the rulers found in reliable books and inscriptions.inscriptions were in sanskrit and they do not mention about varma'n' which is a corrupted form of Tamil scholors. Pallavas ruled most of today's Andhra region and North Tamil Nadu. So one cannot rename according to their region. Varman is a respected form of Varma in Tamil accent and this is not the purest form. Even inscription found at cejerla shows title 'Mahendra Vikram Varma' not 'varman'

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0CybxK9ANI8C&pg=PA203&dq=Mahendra+Varma&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnhOuZlsDgAhVTi3AKHQ0kA1cQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Mahendra%20Varma&f=false http://sarasvatam.in/en/2015/12/05/chejerla-inscription-of-mahendra-pallava-i/ So request to retain actual names By LovSLif (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

the sources I have cited above are not from poor source rather WP:RS from journal of asiatic society of great Britain.

The user who reported me here is threatening me on my talk page that he shall block me and he is not interested in discussing on the sources I quoted. Also he is indulging in personal attack with unacceptable language. Please check this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LovSLif#February_2019 By LovSLif (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: Obviously, your there are people who don't agree with your moves. Therefore, you should try Wikipedia:Requested moves. By the way, an 1885 journal is not WP:HISTRS-compliant, when more recent scholarly sources are available: you must find better sources before you submit a move request. utcursch | talk 16:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Rāmānujāchārya

Hello. I am very new here, and would like to discuss the Rāmānujāchārya edit that you have written to me about.

Please could you inform me how to make the adjustments to the Rāmānujāchārya page that I need to make. Karuna Devi Dasi (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference source is as follows: Bhagavad-gita As It Is 7.15 purport Karuna Devi Dasi (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Karuna Devi Dasi: You removed some sourced content from the article without any explanation, and added some unsourced content.

• When removing sourced content, please provide an edit summary (there is an input field for this when you edit the page)
• When adding the content, you should provide a reliable source. Reliable sources include scholarly books, journals etc.: ancient religious texts such as the Bhagavad Gita are not acceptable sources.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, you can drop a note at Wikipedia:Teahouse. utcursch | talk 21:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You have mentioned Bhagavad-gita As It Is. This sacred scripture is the most famous, notable, reliable and definitive source on earth. You will not be able to replace or compare this text of truth with any other reputable source. Hinduism is not a bona fide religion as such, which is why the article must refer to Vaisnavism. Hindu is a hodgepodge term when referring to the great Vaisnava acaryas, rather the term Vedic culture, or Vedic system is appropriate and approved. Please consider this and do the needful.

I corrected spelling and added punctuation. Please consider these necessary improvements. Thank you for your kind attention. Karuna Devi Dasi (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is is held in high esteem by the ISKCON folks, but it isn't suitable for being cited as reference in the biographies on Wikipedia. Same goes for any other religious book: please have a look at WP:RS to learn what kind of sources are considered acceptable on Wikipedia.

The anachronistic use of the term "Hinduism" may have its critics, but the term is widely-used and in this particular article, it is supported by at least two academic sources. If you know of a scholarly, academic source that disputes the use of the term "Hinduism" in this context, feel free to cite them. utcursch | talk 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lalitaditya article correction by me

This is regarding the corrections made by me in the article which were later restored by you. I made these corrections as the sources which I removed were biased sources. The reason is, if you notice both the sources were written by muslim authors. The books written by them state that the works of Kalhan was exaggerated which is wrong. Since Lalitaditya was a king who not only repelled muslim invaders but also defeated them badly, the hate of muslims authors is but obvious towards such a king and therefore distortion in history is attempted by them. You give me any other reference apart from muslim source and I will accept it without hesitation. So the sources and content I removed was a bonafide attempt to improve an artcle on wikipedia. If you can give me any source which is non muslim and states the same thing I will accpet. Else please remove them and the associated content. Lalit Jugtawat (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but the WP:RS guideline doesn't consider the religion of the authors. By your logic, we shouldn't be using any Hindu authors as sources (because they might be biased in favour of the Hindus), any non-Indian sources (because they might be biased in favour of non-Indians), any Indian sources (because they might be biased in favour of Indians) etc. utcursch | talk 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thats why entire sources from the timefor example of british rule are being rejected by wikipedia as being biased, you cannot cite them in wiki so that way a history written in those twoo humdred years have been wiped. And secondly, if you can provide a single source who endorses the things said by these muslim authors i will accept it. You wont fimd any. Secondly, these authors are not scholars of repute. So their authencity is doubtful. Lalit Jugtawat (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There are actually multiple sources, including by Hindu authors, which brand Kalhana's claims as exaggerated -- I've added some of these to the article. Kalhana's account of Lalitaditya includes incredible stories, such as the king providing water for his entire army by striking the desert sand with his sword. Actually, I'd like to see if there is any historian who thinks that Kalhana's account is not exaggerated. utcursch | talk 01:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

History from the East India Company/Raj era is not being "wiped". We do not have a 200-year vacuum. It is preferable to use modern academic secondary sources and if they cite the Raj stuff then it is ok to reflect what they say. As a rule, they tend to put caveats on those sources. Same with Kalhana, whom Burton Stein thought to be significant because his is just about the only account of note for the period. I don't think even Stein suggested that Kalhana actually got it "right" - he went to great lengths to put K's writings in the context of the time and K's court position etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it was a tradition to exaggerate the deeds of a king for two reasons. First so that ordinary will people follow him with more faith and the fact is nobody wants to follow an ordinary guy. So legends were created deliberately. Secondly to inspire the next generation. As the science was still under development, miracles were created and were not explicable by the use of science. This was prevalent in Europe as well and almost every king in history had his historians who made exaggerated claims whether hindu, muslim or european. So what one needs to do in these circumstances is to reject something which is beyond logic. But to cite any court chronicler or bard or court historian as exaggerated is like saying a very obvious thing such as sky is blue, because this is something they were supposed to do and everybody else was doing the same thing everwhere. So to reject Kahana's claims as highly exaggerated is pointless and shows immaturity in understanding history. Lalit Jugtawat (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what article is being referred to here but I disagree. If we must cite information from old court texts etc, it is important to put them in context. We should not assume that the reader implicitly understands. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Lalitaditya. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thats true. Context is required and can be provided as well but will people get it. Because you might need some insight into the local culture as well. These things are complicated. Lalit Jugtawat (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

222.164.212.168

This user has a habit of creating original researches in Haryana related articles based on that "Haryana gazette" source. I had Ambala City and Ambala Cantt in my watchlist, so I took care of those but I'm sure he edited all other locations mentioned in the Haryana gazette source. His original researches are also pro Rajput it seems. And when confronted, he'd ask others to patch up his work - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen that - some of the user's contributions are pretty decent, but others feature a lot of synthesis, POV and unsourced material. Will keep a watch. utcursch | talk 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks sir. And yes, I've seen him add mythology and time periods without sources as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Sarvesh130 is still at it

See Special:Contributions/175.38.121.117 - exact same edit summaries and types of changes. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up -- will keep a watch, and extend the block if necessary. utcursch | talk 23:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mahar caste

U removed recourses which i added saying poorly sourced? well have you ever check citations? the 1st mistake is mehar name which was fixed by me in government records it is not mentioned at all. and you added mehar wow don't you think this is hypocritical you add its perfect, i add it's poorly resourced. Nowthatsk (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Mahar. utcursch | talk 01:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sant State

Hi utcursch, reaching out to your for advice/intervention since you take interest in local pages related to India. Check out Sant State where an unregistered user reverted my removal of unreferenced material without providing an explanation. I am not versed in Wikipedia policies, but do know that me re-reverting the changes will probably do no good but prolong the edit war. Any advice or intervention would be appreciated. If my edit was wrong in the first place, do let me know too. Deccantrap (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deccantrap: I've undone the anon's edit. The anon removed a reference and added unsourced content without providing any edit summary. Feel free to undo such edits boldly, and drop an appropriate message (such as {{uw-unsourced1}} or {{uw-delete1}}) on the anon's talk page. utcursch | talk 01:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you utcursch for the action and for the suggestions. Deccantrap (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Chomchom

There os no need of mentioning the person or the place who made a variety of this unique bangladeshi dish. Khondoker Jobair (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The source (which is Bangladeshi by the way) considers it important enough to be mentioned. utcursch | talk 18:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Refreshment on way

		A glass of Lassi for you
		Here is a glass of Lassi for you. Lassi is a traditional Indian dahi (yogurt) based drink. you washed a lot of socks today, here is something for some refreshment. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

The changes to the Chera Article are valid.

The language spoken in Chera empire was an ancient form of Malayalam, called Tamizh. It is not Tamil language spoken in Pandia and Chola regions. Malayalam is classical..

If there is any proof that one of the earliest documents in Malayalam language is from 1200 years ago, it should have been produced in the court. Madras High Court has rejected such baseless claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.141.21 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Indiankanoon.org is not an acceptable source; not to mention that it the page cited by you doesn't even mention the Cheras (omission is not evidence). Please read WP:V and WP:RS, take your concerns to the talk page per WP:BRD. utcursch | talk 18:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Addison

Utcurcsh all the links i have added are valid.why are you removing the same .... Ugli baar se hataya to teri gaand maar ke dhaniya bo dunga😎😎😎 Prakash singh marko (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Nai caste

Why are you remove my edit from Nai Caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC) And in Nai caste article almost all information is false and in Chaulukyas dynasty written name of caste who belongs to it is also untrue so why are you remove my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Chandraguta did ·not belong to your caste. Please see WP:V and WP:RS.

In this edit, you claimed that " Chandragupt is son of Mahapadma Nanda and Maura and belongs to Nai (caste)." In this edit, you added "Shri Devi puran" and "Bhavishya Puran", which do not support these assertions and are not WP:HISTRS-compliant anyway. utcursch | talk 14:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

IN Mahabharat it mentioned Chandragupt is son of Mahapadma nanda and i give citations of Devi bhagvat and Bhavishya puran because in that text mentioned name of chandragupt ,Mahapadma Nanda and surname[Maurya] so how can you remove my edits. and not just Nanda and Maurya but Lord Buddha also belongs to this clan according to Buddhist text Ashoka belongs to Gautam buddha they mentioned.

None of these texts support your claim. If they do, please provide the relevant quotes. utcursch | talk 11:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's written when Kalyug varnan front of Yudhishthir Ajnabh (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You asking many question but i want ask question why you don't remove solanki from Chalukyas Ajnabh (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source Ajnabh (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your patience, utcursch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccantrap (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep appreciate him i don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Now i understand before me some one claiming they belongs chandragupt but his all story is false because never there caste mentioned in puran . You agree not with reality but you agree with there false story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any quotes for the claims that all these people belonged to your Nai caste. As for the Chaulukya dynasty, the article doesn't state that they belonged to a modern-day caste called Solanki. "Solanki" is a common term used for them in several medieval texts as well as modern sources cited in the article. utcursch | talk 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

which medieval text show that how much that reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly are you asking, as your sentence is grammatically incorrect. But in case you're asking for sources that use the term "Solanki" to describe the Chaulukya dynasty: here you go. utcursch | talk

I asking for citations or reference who show solanki conection with Chalukyas because how much history i read solanki does not belongs Chalukyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC) And Google book also tell you that chandragupt is son of Mahapadma Nanda but that book is copyrighted thats why i don't give reference of that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC) but same thing mention in Mahabharat

If you're referring to the modern Solanki caste: the article does not state the dynasty belonged to that caste.

The claim that Chandragupta belonged to the Nanda family appears in the writings of Dhundiraja, and is mentioned at Chandragupta Maurya#Ancestry. What has it got to do with your assertion that Chandragupta belonged to the Nai caste? utcursch | talk 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mauryas-Indian History and Architecture-Khanheri Cave Complex Purratattva.in>...>14>The Mauryas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Google book History of Classical

This source makes no mention of the Nai caste. utcursch | talk 02:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Magadha kings since 4159bce History-booksfacts Https://www.booksfacts.com>history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC) I am showing you Mahapadma Nanda is father of chandragupt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Mahapadma Nanda belongs to Nai clan so his son belongs to which clan?

Umm... what's your point? As stated earlier, the article already mentions that a commentator named Dhundhiraja describes Chandragupta as the son of a Nanda (although several other sources disagree).

Dhundhiraja does not describe the Nanda king as a barber.

As mentioned at Nanda Empire#Origins, the sources that describe the Nanda king as a barber are the Greco-Roman writers and the Jain tradition: these sources do not describe Chandragupta as the son of a Nanda king.

You're picking up two different claims from different sources, and combining them together: this is original research, and not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Also, every historical person who was a barber does not become a member of your "Nai caste". The "Nai clan" or "Nai caste" did not exist back then. utcursch | talk 02:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is he Mahabharat is more reliable then any text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC) many people tell every one anything false statement etc but mahabharat is not partial not taking anybody's side Mahabharat is more reliable then any new text where from new texts taking inspiration form puran granth etc. Puran state that Mahapadma Nanda belongs to Nai caste not barber caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the claim that "Mahapadma Nanda belongs to Nai caste" according to the Puranas. utcursch | talk 03:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhavishya puran and other also.and in Wikipedia state Mahapadma father belongs to Nai caste. Any question  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 

And according puran in Wikipedia done mistakes so I am improving it and you have problem with that also

And do you whant to known why historians written solanki in bracket(solanki)in Chaulukyas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not "improving" anything: you are adding misinformation to promote your caste, and you'll get blocked for it, if you continue to do so.

As for the Solanki bit, your sentence is incomprehensible. utcursch | talk 03:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 14.139.38.127

Hi, I noticed that you've already warned this IP address regarding vandalism but this behavior seems to have continued unabated. I understand that that the IP belongs to an educational institute and is shared by multiple users so it complicates things but is it possible to block the IP from making changes to Gauri Lankesh which is the page they seem most intent on vandalizing? Thanks! Divzsd (talk) 16:34 21 April 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Divzsd: I'll keep a watch, and block the IP address the next time they make such an edit. You can report such vandals to WP:AIV. utcursch | talk 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For all the crap you have to deal with. I respect your calm and ability to deal with them. Nizil (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ramayana

@Utcursch: Hi. Please take a look at the Ramayana page. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hemu

Why remove the fact that Hemu was the king, not merely a general and wazir of Adil Shah.What I had mentioned is well documented and gives facts. Present sentence hides the truth.Please change it to former description.

182.68.161.83 (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The next paragraph already states that Hemu assumed royal title for around a month. utcursch | talk 04:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Back again. Replied for your comment at Talkpage Archieve checking.--Vin09 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you back! utcursch | talk 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Baisla

Utcursch are you mad the references of Baisla article is from government websites so how it could be poor sources first see it before deleting it. I am surprised that in the Teotia article the any peragraph didnt match any references but you didn't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:202b:e56b:1a60:1bc0:15d:bbe4 (talk • contribs)

Much of the content was unsourced, and the supposedly-sourced content was either poorly-sourced, and/or not supported by the source. For example:

• This is a dead link
• The onefivenine.com links cited in the article didn't even mention Baisla, and that website isn't a reliable source anyway, as discussed several times at WP:RSN and WT:IN (e.g. 1, 2)
• The New History of the Marathas does not state that "the family of Chatrapati Shivaji Bhosle is also belongs to Baisla gotra" [sic]
• etc.

I had never come across the Teotia article, but thanks for the heads up: off goes the unsourced content. utcursch | talk 03:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

@Utcursch: Is Reddypalem, correct? or disambiguation tag should be added?--Vin09 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems alright. Added {{Geodis}}. utcursch | talk 17:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Indian legendary characters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Indian legendary characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Baisla

Hello this is Karan and i made changes in Baisla wikipedia but you deleted this can you tell me in this article which is poor reference or no source. I think this is government site and not a poor or not matchable soure.

During 8th century, a Gurjara-Pratihara ruler of Ajmer named Vishal Dev Chauhan became better known by the nickname "Bisal dev" and Bisaldeo. His descendants were called Baisle or Bainsla. Baislas are descendant of Vishal Dev Chauhan.Vishal Dev Chauhan, also known as Bissal Dev or Bisaldev were ruling in Ajmer during 8th century. Bisal Dev was brother of Mandal ji (king of Bhilwara, Rajasthan), who founded the Mandal lake near Bhilwara. God Devnarayan was born in the family of Mandal Ji. In the 8th century AD Bisal Dev Chauhan, is said to have successfully resisted an Arab intrusion. He was also credited to help Gurjar tomars (Tanwars) to gain control of Delhi.

References

The first source mentioned by you is "Dasharatha Sharma (1959)", presumably Early Chauhān Dynasties, which you copied from the article Vigraharaja IV. The book doesn't even mention the word "Baisla".

The second page is a write-up on an art website with no mention of any author or editor. It doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:HISTRS standards. utcursch | talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kuldhara 404 Page Update

Hello Utcursch Recently you remove my edited link, about Kuldhara village which is an external link, there are 404-page exists so to improve Wikipedia listing or give some value to the link I added my link which is already on the same topics, so please may I know why you remove this. Thank you. Iankitsethi (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Iankitsethi: If you encounter a dead link, you can tag it with {{dead link}} or remove it - replacing it with a link to your own travel blog is a no-no. See WP:ELNO and WP:REFSPAM. utcursch | talk 04:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Puranas

Hi Utcursch, thank you for your message. Reason why I am changing it because, Shiva purana and linga purana are under Tamas category. Also Varaha puranas and others are all Puranas for Vishnu. Markendaya purana is for Shakt. I can provide proofs, however I am not too familiar on how to use Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:A293:AD00:9053:1EAF:FBE1:40A0 (talk • contribs)

If you're removing sourced content, please explain your changes in the edit summary or on the article's talk page: Talk:Puranas. I highly recommend going through WP:TUTORIAL, if you haven't already. utcursch | talk 03:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sambar

You could have first had a discussion with me on my talk page and then have removed the information. I suppose you can't read Tamil, and of course, you aren't an epigraphist that you can read inscriptions. You have asserted that Champaraam has no connection with Sambar. But the fact is it does, since the inscription is in old Tamil. As for the Tamil.net, which in this regard at least, seems to be more reliable than The Times of India, which is full of discredited personal opinions, it merely states that several scholars have pointed to an inscription of the 15th century. And that inscription is supposed to be the one in that volume, which also has been previously alluded to in the talk page. You can remove that citation if you want, but not the one from the ASI.

Best, Chippy pest Chippy pest (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it is not Champaram, but "Sambaram." In Tamil it is pronounced that way, and various sources had spelled it the same way in English. However, they rightly point to that inscription no.503, paragraph 4 of that volume. Chippy pest (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chippy pest: The assertion that 'Champaraam' has a connection with Sambar' is not supported by the ASI epigraphy book. The anonymous TamilNet article insists that the 1530 inscription uses the word "Champaaram, in the sense of meaning a dish of rice accompanying other rice dishes or spice ingredients with which a dish of vegetable rice is cooked."

Thus, it is the anonymous TamilNet article that concludes that the "Champaaram" (or "Sambaram", as you insist) rice dish is related to modern Sambar. The Archaeological Survey of India's epigraphy book does not mention the Sambar (dish), and therefore, retaining it as a citation would be original research.

The TamilNet conclusion may be plausible, but it needs to be supported by a scholarly source, especially when the K. T. Achaya reference cited in the article states that the earliest mention of the dish is from the 17th century. For example, it could be possible that the word "Sambar" is derived from the name of the food mentioned in the inscription, but the dish itself was a later invention. I can publish an anonymous article on my website claiming that the word "Sambar" is derived from the Indonesian dish Sambal, and was brought to India by the Cholas after their naval raids in that region. That wouldn't make my claim worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

The Times of India article is not being used to assert the Thanjavur legend's historicity. The article clearly states that this is a legend, and for a popular (as evident from news sources) legend, the world's largest selling English newspaper is a decent source. Whenever someone has attempted to present this legend as history in the Wikipedia article, their edits have been promptly undone (I've done this myself multiple times, as here and here.)

Once again: the assertion made in the TamilNet article is entirely plausible, but it needs to be supported by a better source. Maybe try contacting a scholarly journal / academic, and get them to publish an article supporting this assertion? utcursch | talk 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. That's the only option. But we can't decide what is a decent source. Just because TOI is a widely read newspaper, does not make it decent, because unlike Wikipedia, it's written and edited by a group of individuals whose internalised institutional biases can never be erased, even if revealed. Anyway, I am sure Wikipedia has set the rubrics for a reliable source. But as far as I am concerned, no source can ever be invariably absolutely reliable. Regardless of the source, what we must be concerned about is whether the given information or claim is reliable or truthful. And as you have gracefully conceded that it could well be, I don't need to belabour the point. I completely agree with you. As for Achaya, there's no direct reference his book, and the citation only states that according to him, the earliest mention of Sambar in "extant literature," is from the 17th century, not epigraphs, which as we know, predates any literature on paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippy pest (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yadavas of Devagiri

Which page, mister? 57? You've cited Pg. 137. Please check it out. YOU could have also discussed this on the talk page and then have started editing. Pied Hornbill hasn't addressed a single question of mine on his talk page. Chippy pest (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It's page 137, as I've already mentioned on the article's talk page. You are the one making changes, that too, based on the false claim that the cited source does not support the assertion. When someone undoes your edit, you should be seeking consensus on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. utcursch | talk 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Vijayanagara empire

I request you to address my questions on Vijayanagara empire's talk page. If they seem legitimate, do reply.

Thanks, Chippy pest (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chippy pest: Sorry, but I've limited knowledge about the Vijayanagara Empire. Try posting this on WT:INB, and if you fail to get a response there, try WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. utcursch | talk 17:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Chola invasion of Srivijaya

I have reverted all unsourced claims on this article. I'd briefly highlighted the issues regarding it on its talk page. Kindly look into it and resolve the issue. Also please ensure that there is no further outrageous editing or vandalism.

Thank you. Destroyer27 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not much involved with that article, and haven't read much on the topic. Consider dropping a note at WT:IND. utcursch | talk 17:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

New user report violating good faith

Dear @Utcursch:, This is to report a new user Destroyer27 is trying to add back already cleaned up redundant and epic data on origin of -> Pallava_dynasty. The sources were retained and the core content was restored (as much required). This user now trying to add highly redundant and epic content from single source. Single source being used more than 3 times and thus showcasing the content with high emphasis thus overrides the good faith. Also the two paragraphs added were contradictory to each other. Thus retained reliable and core content by cleaning redundant one. When I asked him to not to lay heavy emphasis on single source and refrain from writing essays, he questions me 'who says not to write essays' as can be seen below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destroyer27 This user is using highly informal language and not even signing his statements or comments. Please do the needful. By LovSLif (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This user is lying (or was that a terminological inexactitude, I do not know). I never said that. Dear @Utcursch:, please read what I have said, and lemme know if you find anything I have said objectionable. I asked him, who says that epic essays can't be cited as source. Also, I request you to parse through content and determine the credence of it. My motive is to create a page that reflects a NPOV.

Also, I request you to just look at the facts, which I am sure you will, and not the grouches (such as, "this user is using highly informal language," and so on) that this user has made here.

Now I have added just 3 paragraphs more. I am sure one cannot remove all of them, just as this user did, because it's relevant.

Thank you very much.

(talk) 24:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Utcursch: This user Destroyer27 has taken this matter to another admin despite the discussion is open here. Well, no issues!The page is now protected by that corresponding admin from edit wars allowing further discussion on talk page if any. Will take up accordingly if needed. Thanks for your time! By LovSLif (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare has already protected the article. Please continue the discussion at Talk:Pallava dynasty. utcursch | talk 14:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

On the Talk:Pallava dynasty page a user called "LovSLif" has been making racist comments on me. This isn't the first time he's doing it. I'd sufficiently intimated him to not do so. But he's done it now plenty of times violating good faith. Who can take action against him? Where can I complain? Please help me. I am a new user, and I am sick and tired of such remarks. Please do something about it, I beseech you. Also I'd proposed the inclusion of some data with apt citations which had existed on the Wikipedia page previously. The same user had removed it a few months ago. Nobody reverted. But I did. So now the page has been protected since the past 4 days. When I responded to arguments, deliberately to delay the changes to be made on the page, he's threatened to take it to the Dispute Noticeboard. Also, assuming me to be of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me. That's quite racist. Please take a look. Thank you!

Also I read his complaints here on your talk page. They're complete lies.

Regards,

Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Dispute resolution is a good way to resolve this situation. If you think that the personal attacks are getting too serious, consider dropping a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Sorry, I'm a little busy in personal life right now, and don't have time to go through the discussion on the article's talk page or the edits by the involved users. utcursch | talk 20:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Caste promoting user

Sir, please check the edits by @HinduKshatrana:. He is adding loads of unacademic claims to various articles trying to promote Yadavs and Ahirs. He is adding ahir and Saini to Rajput clans which is plainly wrong.213.205.240.130 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, loads of unsourced nonsense is being added to Solar dynasty, Lunar dynasty etc.213.205.240.130 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed quite a bit. Consider dropping a note at WT:IND for India-related topics in future. utcursch | talk 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Khatik

Akhil bharatiya khatik samaj

Hello @Utcursch:, Please review and cast your vote to Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj page as it is very helpful for Khatik social group of India. Thanks, Sunilbutolia (talk)

Gobinda Chandra Khatik road in kolkata

Hello @Utcursch:, I am also write on wikipedia. I want to add a page of road in kolkata named Gobinda Chandra Khatik Road, please review and tell me if this is a notable subject. Thanks, Sunilbutolia (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia

Sorry, but I'm not very familiar with these topics. utcursch | talk 14:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bagnapalle State

I've just added the source for the motto. Thanks for letting me know.:) -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@FlyingSimurgh: royalark.net is not a reliable source, as discussed at WP:RSN multiple times (e.g. here and here. utcursch | talk 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah sorry, didn't know that. Ive taken a look to see if I can find it in another source. Haven't been able to thus far. Do you want me to remove it?

As a whole though, that page doesn't really have any serious sources like gazetteers etc. Maybe I can add something later on.I think the Golden book should definitely have something. But right now it seem that the entire history section is completely un-sourced. Not even the typical royal ark present in every indian royalty page. -flyingsimurgh

Yes, you should remove it. utcursch | talk 18:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not contradict on articles

Hi I noticed u seem to have reverted both my edits on the Pandya dynasty and Chola dynasty articles. However, u seem to contradict yourself when u made edits to the article on Chera dynasty, which also has had a similar flag. This might be ur mistake but it’s fine, but next time please realise the mistake in your side before correcting other. Thank you. —Hari147 Hari147 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't added that flag to the Chera dynasty. Obviously, it should be removed from that article too. utcursch | talk 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

REPOST MY CONTENT BECAUSE YOUR MISTAKENLY REMOVED IT

Hello, mr @Utcursch i respect your hardwork & passion towards wikipedia but the content is removed by in page of shivsena. That content added as a piece of external news related to shivsena has i'm not violating the content just added the news which is genuinely related to shiv sena & you can watch out that news which was neutral and solely maintains the standard of wikipedia. All the news are taken from geniune website i.e www.maharashtranews.com. You can checkout & please once again think as i'm addding genunie & neutral news without violating wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk302 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gk302: Please see WP:ELNO: there are thousands of news articles about Shiv Sena - Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Your additions may be seen as refspam. utcursch | talk 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerned about a page.

Hey Utcurch, please take a look at the page 36 royal races. Someone stated that he/she is reverting to the last version of Your's but actually has done other removals which I observed, was not a part of your last edit version. And please just bookmark that page in your WATCHLIST. HinduKshatrana (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone else has taken care of this. utcursch | talk 16:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Edition on paragraph

Sir you edit the following data from mian mir.From the successor and sajada nasheen data ,people know that who is the current successor. Peershafqatalishah (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peershafqatalishah: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. "SHAJRAH E NASBI SADDAAT FAMILY HAZRAT MIAN MIR" is not an acceptable source by Wikipedia standards: a scholarly book, a news report, a journal article etc. are acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peershafqatalishah (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Plz contact with me Peershafqatalishah (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

Someone have vandelised the khalji page, (from original turko afghan to turkic) can you please fix that, thank you.

Origin in opening section.

Hi, you edited the khalji dynasty where origin will only be on origin section ( which was already there), but there have been some vandalism. Can you undo that please, because that was what you said back then. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.196.230 (talk • contribs)

Removed from lead. utcursch | talk 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thakor

Pls Protect The Page Thakor LastofWords (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's just one user who's being problematic -- will block that particular user if the problem persists .utcursch | talk 13:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

vishh09 on Kalinga

Hello, I have cited a book by Kumar Bidyadhar Singh Deo's 'Nandapura: A forsaken kingdom' that Suryavanshis of Jeypore/Nandapur kingdom were the emperors of Kalinga at one stage under Vishwanath Deo Gajapati and later under Viswambhar Deo. You can read page 6 where it has been quoted by Carmichael and then in page 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishh09 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vishh09: You're using the book to source the claim that the rulers of Jeypore bore the title "Kalingadhipati" The book (viewable here) does not support this claim. The only region-specific "-adhipati" title mentioned in the book is on page 46: "the Nanda rulers were called Samasth-Gondarama-Adhipati. Gondarama, Olusurama, Drakharama were the three contiguous areas which once spread from the mountainous region of the Orissa States to the river Godavari." utcursch | talk 19:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Rahul29feburary

Hi, Utcursch. I've rolled back most of the stuff this SPA has put on Talk:Ghirth. There's a lot of repetition and some promotional text chunks in Hindi. But I have a lot of trouble figuring out what he even wants. To put it all on Ghirth, perhaps? (He can't as he's not autoconfirmed.) Could you take a look, and maybe have a word? Bishonen | talk 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

Update: he's steaming ahead, and I've blocked to get his attention. Hope it works. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Apparently, the guy has a problem with the sourced statement that the Ghirths were once considered inferior to Rajputs in the caste hierarchy, and were employed as servants by them. He asserts that the Ghirths are a mixture of Rajputs and Jats, who "who lost their status in katoach kingdom".

As you already know, the guy wasn't really adding any useful to the discussions: it was repetitive castecruft cherry-picked from unreliable sources. utcursch | talk 15:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. You've probably seen his useless replies to me. I'm kind of wishing I'd indeffed instead of just giving him 48 hours, because that's surely where it'll end. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC).

kabul shahi

Hi .I think The main page kabul shahi should be recreated, that is very important.It is the historical name, turki (bhuddist ) and hindu shais are sub divisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.22.22 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nagina Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nagina Group 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/Nagina Group (2nd nomination) 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. Störm (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chronicles of Vladimir Tod.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chronicles of Vladimir Tod.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Alha and Banafar caste page vandalism

Hello sir! The Wikipedia pages of "Alha" and "banafar" are continuously being vandalised by some "caste based extremists" trying to distort history. Banafars are a gotra in Rajput community of central India .I too belong to banafar community and it pains to see how your website is being used to spread false information about my brave ancestors .I hope you study about this case ,fix the pages and lock them to protect it from vandalism in future so that worng distorted information isn't spread via your website. Thank you Sir Thakur Singh (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've a problem with the 'Ahir' bit. As long as a reliable source mentions it, I don't see a problem with it. Have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 16:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

IP jumper

Hello Utcursch! We have been having severe editorial issues through IP jumping on a few India-related article which have been mangled beyond recognition. There are many copyvio issues, falsification of sources, dates, etc.... And it is impossible to correct as IPs keep returning without accountability (apparently same user, from two alternating places). There have been several efforts at blocking [1], but this is never ending. Would it be possibly to protect these articles, to allow only registered users? The articles in question are: Architecture of India, Coinage of India, Punch-marked coins, Kosambi and a few more. Thank you for your help! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch on these articles. If the problem persists, you can request page protection at WP:RfPP. utcursch | talk 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

reverting undoing of massive vandalism

Hi, you have recently reverted to maintain vandalism on the pages Architecture of India, Coinage of India without giving any feasible reason, the massive content removal which has been there for months has been removed without justifiable reason, all the content has been backed up by academic sources. Zombie gunner (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zombie gunner: See the section above. I'm guessing you're same as the IP hopper - multiple editors seem to have problems with your additions. Please discuss your additions on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. utcursch | talk 14:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

what multiple editors are you refering to, the content was there for months without any objection, why have you removed my content, what issues do you seem to be having now which you didn't have one month ago? Zombie gunner (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, see the section just above this one for the concerns raised against your edits. E.g. here you re-instated copyvio content lifted from coinindia.com. utcursch | talk 14:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

i have already addressed those issues raised by a single editor, please refer his talk page for reference, the issues raised by the editor were discussed and adequately tackled, you have referenced one copy editing issue, this could have been tackled without massive removal of the sourced content, you have also not listed any multiple users who had issues, as i have already stated, that content was there as it is for atleast two months, four months since start of addition, no one has objected until the massive content removal by a single user few days ago who initially objected on coin dating, arguments which were adequately tackled, one user has been responsible for the entire content removal from three articles, this is very much indicates vandalism. Zombie gunner (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're reinstating content that includes copyvio, citations without page #s etc. while claiming that you're undoing vandalism, that's a problem. If you're reinstating such content, it's your responsibility to filter out the problematic parts. I've no problem if you re-add well-sourced content to the article. utcursch | talk 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

the copy edited content is still there, its the academic sourced content which has been removed from the coinage of india article, same goes to the rest of the content from architecture of india. i have tried reinstating them, but you have reverted them. Zombie gunner (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed it, because it still includes problematic content such as coyvios. Feel free to selectively re-instate your additions, minus the problematic parts. utcursch | talk 16:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of Zombie gunner's images (as well as those of his multiple IPs) are probable copyright violations. He has been removing Deletion requests from nominated images in an attempt to block the evaluation process [2]. We have been having severe editorial issues through IP jumping on these few India-related article which have been damaged beyond recognition. There are many copyvio issues, falsification of sources, dates (For example change of image description at Commons false date then changing the description of Wikipedia [3]) etc.... And it is impossible to correct as IPs keep returning without accountability (apparently same user, from two alternating places, now Zombie gunner since today). There have been several efforts at blocking the user [4], but this is never ending. I have asked for article protection here and I am attempting to clean up.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Utcursch, do you have any objection regarding Architecture of India, some parts which you think shouldn't be included in versions prior to your reverted revision? Zombie gunner (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Talk:Architecture of India - there are copyright issues with images. utcursch | talk 13:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)