Jump to content

User talk:Abecedare/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Removal of Russia Rajputs from Rajputisation as well

Hello sir, Rajputisation is about various non rajput community assuming rajput status. If the ground for removal of Russia Rajputs from Rajput is that, they form part of the community or not is disputed, why should we apply it to Rajputisation, as there it's about non Rajput communities only. Is there a permanent place to fix this issue. I need output from neutral third party editors. `Heba Aisha (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

dear Admin, I had removed that image raising the issue of WP:V many days back, despite the fact that there is discussion and still an editor is trying to go in direction of WP:POINTy. He/She has no WP:V reference for the same other than what shared by photographer, the photographer is himself not sure about antecedents. Still the editor is trying to force his/her way. I would like to inform the fake user generated image controversy the editor was involved into was also on the same page wrt. And regarding Rajputisation, the short desc and lead openly is relating it with one social grp. RS6784 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
and the same image was removed by another editor on that page.RS6784 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the page-history of Rajputisation and it is disappointing that the disputed image has been repeatedly added and removed from the article since May 5th, despite me advising the involved editors before then to follow WP:BRD strictly. Any more edit-warring or disruption will lead to topic-bans from caste-based edits.
Whether the image is included or not is a content issue that needs to be settled on the article talkpage or through WP:DR. Arguably, the decision can be different from the one that is eventually reached at Rajput, but until consensus is reached maintain the status quo wrt the version that was protected by ToBeFree, which excluded the image. Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping :) I'd focus on WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN/WP:UNDUE and similar policy sections, or simply WP:EW, rather than putting too much weight on the BRD essay by itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
ToBeFree and sir, i tried a lot to avoid some of the recent edits on various Rajput related articles.But, i identified many problems, which led me to believe that some editors are trying to glorify the Rajput caste. A common problem, with which many admins are aware like Bishonen}. Let me give one example.
  1. In state of Bihar only four upper caste are there. And they formed majority of the landlords in the era of landlordism. See Zamindars of Bihar. Rajput were one of them.
  2. But, users are removing content sourced from high quality sources like a document of United Nations. [1], on dubious ground. I would like to point out that i don't want to involve in edit warring as admin Abecedare has discretion to block any of the edit warrior in the area of "caste related articles". But, things are not going in right direction. I can give similar other examples. Is there any place where lot of outsiders put their view as some editors are engaged in policy play. They choose policies to suit their own view. PS:Why WP:UNCENSORED shouldn't be applicable on Rajput article.?[2] `Heba Aisha (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: I see that the content you are referring to was removed by Lord 0f Avernus in a series of edits. I tried to locate the related discussion on the talk-page and eventually found it at the bottom of the section about Awadhi Rajputs, with the final comment on May 6th by RuudVanClerk. I'll need some background to understand the debate. To start with: is the content being sourced from this article by Kelkar related to Awadhi Rajputs? (a yes or no will suffice). Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Collapse lengthy back and forth. It is more productive to pick one topic/complaint at a time and resolve it, rather than try to throw the kitchen sink in an (apparent) attempt to get the other party sanctioned.Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I was just about to come to you and I saw a comment above. Is it a right way to tag an editor for discussion and then put some indirect accusations when that editor responds to it? Regarding the last line above, let us also remember we cannot have glorification and as well as some type of step to just demonise any group ( already I have seen a fake user generated image step on that page. On glorification of a community, there are many community pages where newspaper references are being used to put a point, why not correct it?. I don't see such a case here, I am of the opinion rather than improving such pages where completely unreliable references are added, a lot of editors get bogged down to a particular page. RS6784 (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPA PLEASE, it's not correct to call that image as fake user generated. You may call it WP: OR. Don't let outsiders interpret that all Rajput are royal looking people. It's just the paucity of time for which i accepted renaming of that image on commons otherwise i would have presented the proof of those people being Rajput. [3], see here. In this article, there are some images related to Rajput people of Bihar. Anyone who is not from India here can observe the dressing pattern and way of living. It's not like being presented at Rajput. But, since a lot of editors are already making WP:NPOV violating changes and not letting others work freely, i dont want to engage in edit warring as they will remove every edit and accuse me on frivolous ground. I have expressed my views on various topics recently and will probably go for a break (already taking break). But, would like to tell all admins and veteran editors visiting here that there will be "Caste boosterism" on the Rajput related articles. This news report is a third party non user generated content and one can see that no difference in between Chamar, Dom and Rajputs in Bihar is there. So, this is my request to don't accuse that image added by me as frivolous. wP:OR is right word. Assume WP:Goodfaith. Also, no high quality sources are available for every matter and for every community and newspapers are not completely frivolous sources, many articles are written on the basis on newspaper sources only as no substitute to them is there. You should be calm and composed rather than being a disruptor. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
stop coming up with pseudo-scientific things to make your points. We have the data for various groups but that is not allowed on Wikipedia in case of South Asian groups, so I will not go on it. But let me make it clear that it does contradicts all of your points. For news report do read the description of it as it does says they and Bhumihar control villages by using lower castes here the lines- In south and central Bihar, the dominant Bhumihars and Rajputs come across as a scattered group of voters – mostly preferring a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government – and expressed their anguish against the Nitish Kumar government. Both the groups, who are known to be active campaigners in the run-up to polls, remained largely muted this time around. Their confusions came to the fore in conversations . Coming to the user image generated part, your utter dialike for a particular social group here does create this possibility of WP:AGF, WP:DGF, you were not able to verify it which definitely gives weightage to my points and lastly for WP:NPA, it should also be more applicable to you when you tag other editors and they respond to it then please don't come up with some kind of accusations in next reply. I request you again that in a discussion to only stick to the subject line, no deviations. Don't come up with disjointed things to just have a bait and trap on other editors. I will not reply anything further here. RS6784 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Admin Abecedare, this is the kind of accusations regularly is made by an editor even after tagging me here - [[4]] just because I said sometimes good faith we put up our own biases. And the same happens even after raising certain issues on talk page where I didn't even tagged anyone. Here is the latest example of accusations, reason I found out a simple error in the lines. I didn't even tagged anyone, just see : [[5]]. RS6784 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please revert yourself

We are not a bureaucracy; please revert yourself. Till now, Version C has got my (and the nom's) support and both of us appear to be okay with the trivial change. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I have explained the reasoning for my revert at TryKid's talkpage; see also my heads up message prior to the start of the RFC to prevent exactly this type of messiness. Since there have already been two attempts to change the RFC header within the past couple of hours, I'll add a comment to the header to try to prevent such recurrence. Abecedare (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah - MOREBURO blah blah. Please have your way unless you plan to "freeze" the version that will be the outcome of this RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the article history, it is likely that the revised lede para that results from this RFC will also need to be "frozen". Hopefully, with time, the emotions surrounding this topic will cool and we'll be able to resume more collegial editing without such admin oversight. Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

SOAP?

I am very much convinced that discussions such as this and this, which are circular, meandering, WP:IDNHT, etc., are actually WP:SOAPBOX activities. All of them have the same pattern—a novel and fantastic interpretation of a sentence or a phrase, ignoring everything else. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Sorry for the late response. I see that Homogenie has been indeffed for edit-warring in the meantime. I have also dropped a note on User talk:Homogenie so that any future ROPE/SO unblock doesn't memory-hole the problematic history. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE Block?

Can we get a block for Jhy.rjwk (talk · contribs)? They have moved on from The Kashmir Files article but with edits such as this (Special:Diff/1091713179) with a edit summary claiming it is unreferenced when it is not (see cited source) and this (Special:Diff/1092595364) where he omits suicide as the cause of death and leaves a implication that the subject had something to do with his wife's death. It's pretty clear by now that they are only interested in POV pushing and not building an encyclopedia. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. The edits and source misrepresentation at Atal Bihari Vajpayee are egregious, and in light of those, it is difficult to assume good faith with regards to the edits to Chander Mohan and elsewhere. It is clear that Jhy cannot edit neutrally in this topic-area and, for now, I have issued a topic-ban. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, the edits is a direct neutral quote from the source "Gujarat riots had a nationwide impact and the Opposition had politically manoeuvred the issue", so it was a good faith edit. For how long I should edit outside Indian politics in order to appeal the topic ban? Jhy.rjwk (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding [6]: ...the previous Wiki text was not found in the source:
  • The previous content at Atal Bihari Vajpayee that you replaced: "...Vajpayee admitted that not removing Modi had been a mistake."
  • First sentence of cited article, Not removing Modi was a mistake, says Vajpayee: "The former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee,..., admitted that not removing Narendra Modi as Chief Minister after the Gujarat episode was a big mistake."
You are welcome to appeal the sanction at any time you wish but the point of indefinite topic/page-pans is that the editor has an oppurtunity and onus to demonstrate through their editing of other topics that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Personally, I like to see at least 6 months of such activity though there is no formal requirement. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Block Review of Cbinetti

Would it be possible to open a block review for Cbinetti? I had a somewhat hard time figuring out that you had indefinitely blocked this editor including from their own talk page. I agree that something beyond the previous page block was needed. I think that at this point the community should be asked to review the matter.

I see that the blocked editor began the controversy back in December 2021 and then in February 2022 by complaining that European colonization of the Americas was biased, and by removing parts of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My block was not really related to any content issue they had, which wikipedia has ample processes to help resolve. It was instead precipitated by the editors repeated assumption of bad faith, personal attacks, and insistence that discrimination and bullying (of which there was no sign of!) because of their identity as a Catholic, Italian, and disabled person was the actual reason for their edit being opposed. Many editors and admins (including you), tried to disabuse them of this. But, despite sometime seeming to take a step back (for example, by saying that they were discriminated against in real life and therefore tend to see it elsewhere) Cbinetti kept backtracking and returning to that well, including in their appeal at UTRS. This refusal/inability to listen made continued discussion of content virtually impossible IMO. The reason I blocked talkpage access too was because in their more recent comments the editor had begun to escalate the accusations to charging illegal conduct.
Frankly, I have not much hope that the editor is a good fit for wikipedia or that further discussion with them will be more productive than previous ones, but I am happy to have the block reviewed. In fact, any admin is welcome to undo or modify it unilaterally without being worried about wheel-warring, and if community input is preferred, we can discuss it at WP:AN. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Abecedare - I know that your block had to do with conduct and not content. I also agree that the block was in order, due to the personal attacks. I happen to think that the editor should be unblocked on his user talk page only, so that he can appeal in a visible forum rather than with the closed process of UTRS. I think that you are right that this editor and Wikipedia are not a good fit. I just think that a block review at WP:AN is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe there have been exchanges that I haven't seen. I don't know what User:DeCausa has done to enrage Cbinetti (maybe nothing), and I haven't seen the accusations of illegal conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Here are the diffs about the alleged illegal conduct: [7], [8]. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Those are thinly veiled legal threats. I was thinking of a different sort of allegations and thought you meant something else, but I agree that those are thinly veiled legal threats. I still don't know what he thinks DeCausa has done. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that when he says that he is an expert, what he really is is an academic with a non-mainstream (maybe fringe) viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, the whole thing was just bizarre. The situation, originally, was a pretty standard one of a newbie with a bee in their bonnet trying to edit war a pet point (removal of the term settler colonialism). I don’t know much about what he wanted - just that what he wanted to take out was supported by cited RS and no ther editors supported his position. (My involvement in the issue was really just one day - on 11 June.) Doug Weller and I reverted him, and I tried to get him to understand WP:RGW, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and consequences of edit warring. He then suddenly announced that we were opposing him because he was a disabled Italian catholic and that not letting him take the phrase out of the article was bullying. Of course, neither Doug nor I had any knowledge that he was a disabled Italian catholic until he announced it and why he thought we would want to stop him making his edit becuase that’s what he was…I have no idea. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and DeCausa: I have seeded a block review request at WP:AN. Feel free to comment there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Kamarupa

Hi! This --> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamarupa#Under_attack_again ) isn't true. If you think my edits were incorrect, update them according to your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

2409:..., I protected the page to stop the incipient edit-warring since this has been a regular source of disruption at that article. Please use the time to discuss the proposed edits with the other editors on the talkpage and gain consensus for their inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Block needed

Seeing you after a long time. Hope things are going fine with you.

Can you take a look at the overall conduct of Mr.nothing anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This account had nearly all of his edits reverted and his talk page has only warnings or the messages that only speaks of poor communication by this user. Lorstaking 13:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Nice seeing you around too!
At a quick glance the number of warnings and rule violations are concerning but the editor also seem to be editing in good faith. So will take a deeper look in a few hours to see if the former outweighs the latter by enough to admin intervention, or if further guidance would help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lorstaking: Blocked for a month given the persistent nature of the errors, and unwillingness/inability to improve. Lets see if their conduct changes after this block expires. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

AE

Replied with more details and diffs. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved to my own section. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Have completed my review of the previous and updated evidence. Will add my concluding remarks in a few hours (RL intrudes). Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Might be stray but anchor "re point 6" is empty. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed (I had created it to note use of the astrologer's book as a source but then decided that was too trivial to make an issue of.) Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Noting it here that overall I don't see a major issue with the analysis you have posted but I would like to echo that the 13 instances that were posted took place throughout the period when I made nearly 1,500 edits and I have continued to work on improving my editing. I just thought of letting you know this before you post the result. Thanks. LearnIndology (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@LearnIndology: I realize that being put under such scrutiny cannot be a pleasant experience but my (unsolicited) opinion is that perhaps editing in areas about which you don't have strong pre-existing views will be less fraught and more pleasant. Anyway, I have posted my thoughts at AE; lets see what other admins deem appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I am willing to abide by a topic ban from anything related to India. I wouldn't have a problem in case you want to impose one right away. LearnIndology (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Need your very urgent attention

Dear Sir, it is very urgent that you go through this [[9]], and the kind of attempts are being done by certain editors. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look at it later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Akalanka820: I read through the linked talkpage section and in the center of all the verbiage and distractions, there is a genuine discussion about how much space the article should devote to cover the sexual atrocities committed by Rajputs in Bihar. In my opinion, there is rough agreement to take the approach Kautilya3 proposed (i.e, shorten and tighten the related prose, per WP:DUE, without dilution the content) although someone has to actually implement that, at which point the prose can be further refined through discussion.
I don't see any glaring editor conduct issues presented in the debate and frankly it is your contribution to the discussion that has done the most to raise the temperature: slow down (by my rough count, you have posted ~75 times on that talkpage over the past two weeks, including more than 30 times over the past 36 hours); be more calm and professional; and don't use the article talkpage to make everything a conduct-issue in the hopes of getting others sanctioned. Pinging ToBeFree in case they have anything to add or dispute in my evaluation. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Abecedare, for analyzing the situation in a level of detail I wasn't able to provide due to looking at a wall of text full of self-replies and conduct accusations. Especially the advice in the second paragraph of your message is highly valuable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Bima Bharti

I wanted to create an article on Awadhesh Mandal. But, i saw that a redirect has been created from that article to this one Bima Bharti. Can you tell me, was it there in past and deleted later on or redirected to Bima Bharti.?Admantine123 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123: No, there wasn't a previously existing article for Awadhesh Mandal before the redirect was created on April 27. If you do decide to create a stand-alone bio, do be aware of WP:BLP1E abd WP:BLPCRIME; I haven't researched enough about the subject to have an opinion on whether Mandal is notable enough to write an article on but am pinging Tayi Arajakate in case they have additional thoughts. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Both these policies donot apply as he is not known for single event and has been convicted, not merely accused. How to remove the "redirect"? I want to start it soon.Admantine123 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Admantine123, you can just replace the redirect and write an article in its place. In case you are having trouble getting to the page, here's the link. I don't remember much about this or why I created the redirect, it was 2 years ago, I think he was in the news or something. So unsure if he should have a standalone article, but if you think there should be one then go ahead. Just keep a couple things in mind, that it follows WP:CRIME since that relates more to convicted people and that if the coverage is entirely or nearly entirely about his accusation, conviction and criminal proceedings including any related cases, etc then it would all be considered part of one event. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Tayi Arajakate for the input. And sorry Admantine123 for not replying earlier myself; I had somehow missed your June 16th post and question among other edits to my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

IVC/Ic

Hi there, As there has already been discussion about moving the IVC page to Ic, which has been more popular, I took the liberty of moving the page and citing Google ngrams. Unfortunately, I did not do this correctly. Could you please fix this? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I see that the move has been handled by Amakuru
Some unsolicited commentary: I followed the debate at the IVC RM and sighed at the wasted time (esp. that of content editors). IMO, it is important not to get caught up in the obsession of MOS mavens and waste undue time/effort even opposing them since even that credits that issue with greater importance than it deserves. A great and informative book or wikipedia article can be written with 'non-ideal' nomenclature and orthography and vice versa; best for editors who actually know the subject matter to focus on the former. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Wise words that bear repeating. Thanks for bringing my derailed train back on its track. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Somnath

An editor might need some attention. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I believe that the issue can still be settled through discussion. If Curious man123 or Webberbrad007 believe that Romila Thapar's factual claim is false or disputable, they can present a comparably reliable source that actually disputes it; if it's just them who dispute what Thapar says, then they can be ignored and any further reverts can be sanctioned. Pinging Kautilya3 as an fyi since they too were involved, though the discussion itself is best continued on the article talkpage. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Abecedare, we have reached an impasse. My reasoning was made here but will summarise it below for ease.
The statement by Thapar is that the Somnath temple is not mentioned in any ancient Sanskrit texts. However, if we are to state that in wiki-voice, it would effectively require a claim that no ancient Sanskrit texts have existed which Thapar hasn't reviewed when arriving at the above statement. In addition, I have provided a statement by two scholars expressing shock at Thapar's claims about Somnath based on Sanskrit texts, though they acknowledge her study to be balanced.
In light of this, would attribution of the statement to Thapar make more sense? Webberbrad007 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Webberbrad007: The subject matter is best discussed on the article talkpage with other involved editors (or using dispute resolution) but I'll try to take a look tomorrow after I've checked the cited sources (assuming I can easily access them!). In the meantime, it would be best to avoid any reverts or restatement of the points already made. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Webberbrad007: As a sanity check, I read the Suman & Singh article and IMO the authors are using the word "shock" in the sense of "today we learned something new" rather than "this is hard to believe"; in any case that sentence is about the prominence of the temple during the time of the raids circa 11th century and and not the issue at hand, ie references to Somnath in ancient Sanskrit texts. Also be careful in citing the the SubVersions journal in article space since it is a a student-run media studies journal publishing lightly-reviewed student research, including heterodox takes. It's a commendable undertaking but not really a good source for wikipedia, particularly for history.
(TL;DR)  I am not seeing the e relevance of S&S as a supposed counter to Thapar. Btw, have you checked the Thapar book itself to see what she says and sources she consults (I haven't yet)? Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeking attention

Once I got a comment from you in my WP:RSN post and also found your comment on Homogenie's talk page. So, I am here to draw your attention to some of Homogenie's edits that have been reverted by Chaipau. Though Homogenie is currently blocked, This section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1095712189&diff=prev reverted by Chaipau is very useful. These are cited from G. E. Gerini's Ti-ma-sa article, Geoff Wade's PhD cum Open Access Portal on Ming Shi-lu and Laichen Sun's PhD thesis. Content is about a Chinese plate issued in 1407/8 for Dimasa polity discovered in Assam . But that plate was discovered from Ahom royal family who used the plate to legitimize themselves as per colonial records. Recent scholarships don't explain how Ahom rulers came to use the plate to legitimize themselves, so Chaipau reverted the content Talk:Dimasa_Kingdom#Ming_Shilu_(June_2022) . Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, Please check Talk:Koch_dynasty#Projection_of_caste/tribe_into_the_past . Northeast heritage (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Northeast heritage: Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable about the history of Assam, and so try to limit my involvement in the area to, (1) conduct rather than content issues so that editors who are well-informed about the subject can focus on the latter, (2) weigh in on RS/NPOV issues only when it is a clear-cut case. In the two instances you cite, since the issues are already being discussed on the respective talkpages, I'd advice you to continue the discussion and use WP:DR if that is at an impasse. You can also ask at India project noticeboard for other knowledgeable editors to take a look, although editors in that category are in short supply.Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Once I tried India project noticeboard but didn't get any response. I had some discussions with Chaipau on different topics but not fruitful. Wade and Sun are wondeful RS, these are cited by numerous papers. Actually, There is no content dispute but Assam-based scholars don't know these things. Assam-based scholars mainly focus on Ahom history and write early modern history using Buranjis but Buranjis are silent about most events before 16th century. So, Di-ma-sa plaque and Ming Shi-lu add new information about Di-ma-sa kingdom in 15th century. Issues raised by Chaipau appear some kind of new guidelines created by him. Anyway, Thank you so much. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
In Talk:Koch_dynasty#Projection_of_caste/tribe_into_the_past , there is no content dispute but he thinks different ethnic groups who contributed in building the dynasty/kingdom should not be named. I would like to have your comment there because he seems to invent new guidelines. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nuure Hassan

I wanted to create page for Nuure Hassan with reference articles. Nuure Hassan is a former politician, journalists and political analyst. I’ve provided references but it was deleted by Athaenara claiming it was for misuse of Wikipedia because I accidentally wrote the page wrong, instead of listing the occupations, I put in social media influencer and listed social media links. Intention was to proof but it was deleted for that reason. Would it be possible to allow me to re-edit? I will take out the social medias and make a better description and more references if possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadani1234 (talk • contribs) 07:06, July 7, 2022 (UTC)

@Wadani1234: I have reviewed the draft that was deleted from your userpage as well as the one in your sandbox and their content and listed sources are not sufficient to establish Nuure Hassan's notability for purpose of creating a wikipedia article. If there are other sources available, you can continue working on the sandbox draft; would you like me to move it to draft space where you can work on it for some time and get feedback? Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please move it to the draft space so I can work on it. Thanks Wadani1234 (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wadani1234: Done. You can find it at Draft:Nuure Hassan. You should take a look at wikipedia's guidelines on notability for biographical subjects and on reliable sources to see what would be needed before the article is submitted for review, and possibly moved to mainspace. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

About my new article

I am writing a new article, and since i know many people here, who will just find excuse to hinder my work or to remove the sourced content, i need some suggestions. One thing i have observed that many a times people come to an article, where i have contributed and if they want to remove some content, which they don't like, they say: ABC content doesn't belong to XYZ article, it should be moved to EFG article. Now for my latest article, which is on the subject of violence against Dalits in Post independence Bihar (1947 onwards) and their empowerment after 1990s, particularly after rise of new leadership in state, i want a title. Is this (Atrocities against Dalits in Bihar and Dalit mobilisation) an appropriate title for that ? Give some advice, i don't want them to remove content on the excuse that this content isn't made for article on this title. :)Admantine123 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sounds like original research and synthesis, and thus not anything which belongs in Wikipedia. Is there an article on Dalits in Bihar yet? If not, such an article needs to be written first, based on reliable published sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
No there is no such article like Dalits in Bihar. But high quality sources covers the topic, i mentioned. These sources explicitly talks that, how Dalit mobilisation took place first under Naxalism and second by regime change in 1990. The problem is that, this is about something a good section of people don't want to see here. Those who deal with caste related pages (senior editors) know that how the India's caste system plays role here. You may see the edits on Kurmi by RuudVanClerk and the counter edits by a senior editor after that. Please note the "reason", they have mentioned for reverting the edits of the blocked user.``Admantine123 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Basically, i was inspired by this Violence against Muslims in India. Also, many a time i have remained victim of lack of understanding on the part of other editors. Some vandal once nominated one of my article and 2-3 people collaborated to get that deleted. I asked about title because i know that it has much effect on reader, while he comes across article for the first time. Please suggest a good one. Admantine123 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to stress more on the second statement of mine that some would not like to see some things, even when they are sourced. And since, the admins are mostly outsiders and don't generally know about the topic and local caste matters, it becomes easy for a vandal to use the forums like talk page for negative purpose. Anyway, here is extract from one such high quality source explicitly talking about the changes brought by regime of Lalu Prasad Yadav in Bihar. There are numerous high quality source on the topic i.e condition of Dalits prior to his rise and after him.
  • Suryakant Waghmore; Hugo Gorringe (2020). Civility in Crisis: Democracy, Equality and the Majoritarian Challenge in India. Taylor & Francis. pp. 60, 61. ISBN 978-1000333732.

Our fight is against the wearers of the sacred thread. For centuries, the priests have made fortunes looting peasants. Now I tell them they should learn to milk cattle and graze them, otherwise they will starve.

Commentators appear to be particularly struck by the fact that, under Lalu Yadav's tenure, 'lower-caste' and 'untouchable' agricultural labourers became emboldened in their claims for fair wages and respect from their dominant-caste landlords. They were also less willing to quietly acquiesce in their own exploitation and discrimination. They were more willing and able to retaliate against dominant-caste mistreatment of their persons and properties. The result was an intensification of Bihar's infamous caste wars, with Backward Castes and Dalits retaliating against violence perpetrated by dominant-caste militias. For example, in December 1991, members of a dominant caste outfit that went by the name Savarna Liberation Front were alleged to have gang raped and murdered ten Dalit women. In February 1992, alleged left-wing militants, all either Dalit or Backward Caste, supposedly massacred thirty-five dominant caste landlords in retribution. The opposition Congress Party immediately blamed the Yadav leaders of the Janata Dal for fuelling antipathy among the subaltern population against the dominant castes: party leaders directly held the Chief Minister's incendiary speeches on social justice responsible for the massacre.Chronicling his travels in rural Bihar at the turn of the millennium, Dalrymple narrates his exchange with a dominant-caste landowner who survived the massacre. Describing his travails, Darlymple's interlocutor confidently declares that this massacre was the handiwork of the Bihar government, especially Lalu Prasad Yadav: The government will not protect us. It is on their side. This is the Kali Yug, the epoch of disintegration. The lower castes are rising up. Everything is falling apart.

As far as Bihar's landowning dominant castes could see, the advent of Lalu Yadav was nothing short of a disaster. These perspectives were somewhat echoed by subaltern populations, including Dalits who otherwise had little love lost for either Lalu Yadav or the Yadav community, with which their Chief Minister was affiliated. In the North Bihar regions where I conducted fieldwork31 during 2009 and 2010, a few years after Lalu Yadav was routed in the elections, my interlocutors from the Musahar community -historically stigmatized as 'rat-eaters'-recalled his early years with a glimmer in their eyes. "Lalu helped us find our voice", they said. Some among them told me of the lands they occupied under the aegis of the Janata Dal's earliest years. "The man did little to help. But, unlike the Congressmen, he did not come in the way when we fought for our dignity" 32

Admantine123 (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123: I share the concern Orangemike expressed, i.e, the proposed title seems a better fit for an essay than a encyclopedia article and it may be a better idea to develop a Dalits in Bihar article first (if that is treated as a subject category by secondary sources) That said, I am curious about the rubric under which scholars discuss the proposed subject since that would be the main factor in determining whether a stand-alone article is justified. For example, Environmental degradation in the Himalayas and related protest movements would raise concerns similar to the ones with your proposed article, while Chipko movement is undoubtedly a valid subject for a tertiary source since history/scholarship has reified that topic into one. Can you list the three best secondary sources on the subject (not merely discussing the subject) that would form the basis for your article?
PS: Violence against Muslims in India (and similar articles) is IMO a poor model to follow. Unfortunately on wikipedia, most such articles are no more than excuses for POV pushers to synthesize list of supposed persecutions and contain little of encyclopedic content. Abecedare (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I can mention more than ten SECONDARY sources on the atrocities part and subsequent mobilisation of Dalits by the Naxalite group first and then the leadership of the state after 1990s. Few sources are here.Admantine123 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It is possible that Violence against Muslim in India may be created to club sporadic indicidents together, But, going through some pages of these books one can note that the topic i am talking about donot fall in that case. The last source, and three above it talks about subordination of Dalits under Zamindari system in a systematic manner. The first and 2nd talks about transition in conditions, Dalits were subjected to. Lot of other sources are there and they also talks in depth on the topic.Admantine123 (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
One thing i want to mention, that in this case, i would not mention incidents of violence against Dalits in present time in Bihar. The focus will be on the period of caste wars which aroused due to confrontation between landed group and Naxalite groups, on the question of changing the rural power relation. This is a notable topic and many scholars have written on that. This list[10] from South Asia terrorism portal will be used to identify the incidents that will be described in the article. Because, all of these cases are related to the Dalit mobilisation for wage rights and subsequent counter revolution that developed in Bihar. Admantine123 (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, i think various such articles on incident of atrocities exist, as for example, Rape during the occupation of Germany. My case is similar, it's not about clubbing frequent incidents but about the violence that occurred in period of caste wars, due to contest between caste armies like Ranvir Sena and Left wing extremist groups like Maoist Communist Centre of India and CPI-ML liberation. Would avoid recent incidents, specially after demise of Ranvir Sena. Suggest a middle way please, (PS:I have my examinations in September and still I took half an hour daily to prepare a large part of article). Should I remove mobilisation under politicians part? As sources on mobilisation under Naxalites are in abundance. Admantine123 (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have decided on the basis of sources that the suitable title should be Atrocities against Dalits in Bihar and agrarian conflicts, as all those cases as per sources pertains to agrarian conflicts in post independence Bihar. And the sources also writes in the context of same.Admantine123 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to the general idea of an article that discusses the marginalization of Dalits in Bihar but I think you need to that, as Abecedare says, in a more general Dalits in Bihar style article. Otherwise, this will devolve into a catch all listing of incidents. Typically, that sort of article serves as a vanity article that no one looks at other than Wikipedia editors with a pov. A well constructed article about the history of Dalits in Bihar, how they were marginalized and discriminated against for centuries, post-independence violence against Dalits, the Naxalite movement, and the Dalit resurgence as a political force, that would be something of encyclopedic value. If you do insist on the list style article, note that your selected title has a modifier problem. "Agrarian conflicts" is incorrectly modified (your title appears to say that the atrocities were against agrarian conflicts). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks RegentsPark, agree with both of you. It will be a long article now, but yes, i will write History of Dalits in Bihar now. This will contain all information on their culture, political mobilisation and atrocities against them, the atrocities part will be a section, and other information about their culture, political importance, resurgence, will also be there. Lot of thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that you drop even the History of from the title and just create an article on Dalits in Bihar. In terms to content that will then contain (as RP said) history of Dalits in Bihar, how they were marginalized and discriminated against for centuries, post-independence violence against Dalits, the Naxalite movement, and the Dalit resurgence as a political force, along with some basic demographic information. And if some of the sections (say, on emergence as a political power) develop to be too long they can then be spun-off into stand-alone articles of their own; see summary style for a discussion of this process. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Will do as suggested. Will take few months.Admantine123 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Update

Hello! I just wanted to update you about this note I left at Bbb's page. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That's some extensive sockpuppetry. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Recurring issues

To my regret, DTM/FONSP has began to edit (create new articles, no less!) about the most controversial areas in AmPol and it is not going well. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: While FacetsOfNonStickPans doesn't seem to be violating any "rules" (afaict), I agree that creating Guns don't kill people, people kill people, Bias response team etc is hardly advisable given the circumstances that led to the topic-ban from Indian-politics. Just a friendly nudge, DTM, to find less shark-infested waters to wade in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Tyagi Wikipedia Article

Why you locked edit button on Tyagi Wikipedia article Please open it nd Chance to Tyagi community to edit some changes on article okk 2409:4053:D16:8D5D:0:0:A089:2301 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Tyagi article has been edit-protected because it has been subject to regular disruption over the years, perhaps under the misunderstanding that is a page for the Tyagi community rather than about the Tyagi community. If you have any specific reliably sourced changes you wish to propose to the article you can do so at Talk:Tyagi. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocking of anonymous user — 109.173.62.37

Hello! Could you block user 109.173.62.37?

I think that Vandalism is the propable cause of blocking this user.

85.109.136.232 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

109.173.62.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not edited for over a year, so blocking them now would serve no purpose. Thanks for reviewing their edits though. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Swati Chaturvedi issue

An acquaintance of mine edited the article on Swati Chaturvedi recently. Only it seems that you reversed his edits and consequently he had an anxiety attack because of you, as he thinks it was politically motivated (since the journalist in question is notoriously known to be enemies of Modi and the BJP). I'm irritated, because if this was motivated by politics, then what you did was very dirty with the arduous service he had (and this friend of mine doesn't like to get involved in politics). I beg you, because he thinks that Wikipedia doesn't respect his research work and so I ask you, in all sincerity: why did you do this? It wasn't for politics, right? Because if it's gone, I'm sorry to tell you: that was wrong. And I hope it's just because he had some website he couldn't put. MafiaBoy123 (talk) 16:49 15 October 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@MafiaBoy123: Thanks for bringing this up on my talkpage. I assume you are talking about the edits by 201.17.149.161 (talk). You can find the explanation for my reversion on the article talk-page (see here). In short the concern wasn't "political" (theirs or mine) but the quality of sourcing and the tone. I'd encourage your acquaintance not to panic or get dejected by the reversion of their early edits and instead to create an account to facilitate communication, and then edit boldly but collaboratively. If you or they have any particular questions about editing wikipedia or the relevant policies, feel free to ask. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Tempus fugit! Abecedare (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Otto von Saxony

Hello. I am here to report a possible case of sock puppetry. The user's original account is Otto von Saxony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Otto_von_Saxony

The sock account in question is WinniethePooh136. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WinniethePooh136

The evidence is the edit warring and vandalism in the opinion polling page for the Brazilian election and the refusal to acknowledge genuine concerns about a poll that has never been used before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Brazilian_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Brazilian_presidential_election&diff=1116522329&oldid=1116512461 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Brazilian_presidential_election&diff=1116533719&oldid=1116533229 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Brazilian_presidential_election&action=history

Furthermore, Otto has a history of making inflammatory edits on political subjects that are frequently reverted or causing edit wars by putting in false information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Otto_von_Saxony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Otto_von_Saxony

In addition, Winnie proceeded to become aggressive and left a very threatening message on Pablothepenguin's wall, and while leaving hte message on someone's wall is new, both users have a history of insulting people who disagree with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pablothepenguin#Final_Warning

With all this evidence clearly showing that this is likely the same person who is trying to draw out arguments over a poll with a slew of concerns over whether or not it is real, I am asking that he be investigated and if it is really him, that he be banned.

Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:7581:D27E:EC2F:CC6C (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

Sensing a case of partiality. Kindly help.

I am getting messages on very smaller issues. But nobody is warning and saying anything to people who made false accusations on me. Can u please warn them also?

I made the following clarification already at 2 places but no one care to address it or warn the defaulters. I want to know the reason. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage to keep discussion in one place. Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar

Hi there, Abecedare. Since you've been tagged on Fowler's talk page, I would like to explain what's going on, because your intervention is most needed as I trust your perspective and fair approach. It all started with this edit by Fowler - namely moving information about his off-screen work and personal life to the upper paragraph which details his film career. Having written most of the lead myself, I didn't understand why he would insist on having Kumar's citizenship singled out in the lead (not just mentioned but singled out in a separate paragraph which nothing could be attached to). In a previous discussion on the talk page, a veteran editor noted that his citizenship is given too much importance in the lead.

Following Fowler's edit, I moved the part of his personal life again to the last section in the lead and combined it with the citizenship part. This soon escalated with Fowler, and I started a talk page discussion (my initial heading was not appropriate as Fowler's name was mentioned, but I changed it later). As always, Fowler adopted a brash and rude attitude against me on his talk page. I think the article would greatly benefit from your input. Fowler is there, and his frequent supporter had joined him, proclaiming in the open their bad faith on me, which I see as no less than a personal attack. I'd appreciate both your admin intervention and opinion on the matter. Shahid • Talk2me 20:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Quick response for now (since I haven't really looked at the details of the dispute/discussion and will be away from my computer for a few hours soon after I post this).
Regarding this edit by User:Fowler&fowler: I see their point about the stunt work belonging to the para detailing Kumar's other film-work; don't see why Kabaddi league would be in that para though and am unsure about the Dare 2 Dance part (my opinion would depend upon whether Kumar played an onscreen role or were just an off-screen producer). I also see your point that the citizenship issue would have a potentially undue weight as a stand-alone para in the lede (side note: also not too delighted with wikipedia closely parroting the (NP's paraphrase of?) the language used by Tony Clement during campaign season). There should be a way to balance these valid interests.
In short: I think, if one sets aside the ill-will generated by some recent intemperate actions, this can be easily resolved through talk-page discussion and result in an article lede better than either of the two versions discussed in the previous para. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to engage Fowler in a serious conversation without WP:BLUDGEON on his part. Sorry to say this, but as I said, I'm talking in apples and he replies in oranges. I think you're the right person then to start a neutral RfC on the issue where editors would be invited to weight in on the issue. Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Chola Conquest of Anuradhapura Issue

Hi, many are constantly the history of chola conquest of Anuradhapura, Cholas completely conquered the ceylon in 1017. The source for this is here: Spencer, George W., The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon, vol. 35, pp. 405–419, “Under Rajendra Chola 1, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarata to Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon," But many change this page and write cholas only conquered north ceylon. Can you not allow anyone from editing the truth. please read all the resources. Ranithraja s (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Update

Just wanted to alert you that there was yet another attempt at sock-puppetry by Homogenie/Wordain, related to 2409:4065::/36 and 2405:201:a800::/39 range blocks; and the new sock has been blocked. Chaipau (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

New Year

Taking a break? Hope you have a great year ahead! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Request Update on Patrick Mavros Wiki Page

@Abecedare I am looking for an active administrator that is able to update the Patrick Mavros Wiki Page. I am the e-commerce manager and noticed that our wiki pages is missing a lot of information.

What is the best way for us to work together to assist us in updating that information?


thanks,

Alex KEMP

ecom@patrickmavros.com 2A02:8440:C205:8536:2094:5FD2:DE3B:F51C (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Thanks for asking for advice instead of editing the article PatrickMavros itself (which would have raised conflict of interest concerns). Here is what I would recommend:
  • Post a comment at Talk:PatrickMavros listing the additions/changes you wish to suggest along with sources that support those changes. Independent coverage in reputable third-party sources would be ideal although material generated by the company itself can be acceptable for limited purposes.
  • After you have posted the list of suggested changes on the article talk-page, drop a short note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, asking for someone who works in the subject area to review and implement the changes that comply with wikipedia's purpose and content policies
I would also suggest that you create a wikipedia account since it makes communication easier. Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

why did i get this????

Hi, sorry for mailing you but Ive been looking for someone to ask about this. So I have this banner on my user page saying I am a sockpuppet account of this person: User:Gwalker69420. I found no reason for them to suspect me and I tried to see the info by seeing the edits. there was no evidence included.

Do you have any way I could this banner off of my user page? Warrior9994 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This looks like a mistake. @Callanecc:--RegentsPark (comment) 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Warrior9994, it was a mistake sorry. I've deleted it for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @RegentsPark and Callanecc: for the prompt response to Warrior9994's message! Tied up IRL for the next day or so; will try to be more responsive myself after that. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Niš

Greeting. I just want to summarize the events: The editor asked the question whether to add controversial names to the introductory part of the article, and after a few hours he did so. The admin then chimed in and objected to it, but the text remained (?). Now we need to discuss its removal. And now I have a question: So, what will happen if I do the same (I ask a question and after a few hours I do what I set out to do because no one managed to answer in such a short time)? — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The result is already clear. Discuss on the talk page if there is anything that speaks against my edit. I've waited a week after @Vanjagenije intervened and removed the text. Then I added the disputed content. If your behaviour doesn't stop you will end up defending yourself at the admins page. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ruach Chayim: The timeline you give above is not correct; see the article history for details.
The recommended process (which was followed here) is WP:BRD. The point, though, is not to follow some algorithmic procedure but to edit in good-faith keeping the 5 pillars in mind. As long as you do that, you'll be fine (conversely, attempts to game the system while following the letter of the policies only gets people in trouble). Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same thing? The editor added the controversial text, the admin removed it, and the editor put it back again. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I provided a reliable source and even pinged the admin on the discussion and they didn't object. I've waited one week for their response. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It's very likely that he didn't even see it at all. Notifications often don't even arrive at all. But certainly, you asked the question and only one editor came forward and was against it. Therefore, the consensus was not achieved. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
He processed the extended-confirmed-protected edit request right underneath my discussion. Its impossible to miss it. It would be great if @Vanjagenije would make a statement to clear the confusion. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ruach Chayim: I'll keep it short:

Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just relax ; ) Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Seeing that you are back now, can you help resolving this dispute? Thanks Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: I glanced through the discussion and don't believe that it will benefit by having "one more opinion" since any such input is likely to followed by the pattern of more source-quotes and (dueling) interpretations being posted without any resolution. So I would suggest that the editors try out WP:DRN, where a moderator can guide the discussion to keep it focused. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
DRN is purely non-obligatory and it cannot enforce consensus. On talk page so far, everyone appears to be agreeing that the content should be removed from the lead except Fowler. In that case, the consensus should be followed but I don't think it will work that smoothly. That's why I am asking you should chime in. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I've been kibitzing on the discussion and, like Abe, feel that this is unlikely to be resolved without DRN. My suggestion is that you craft out a carefully neutral RfC, add your own position, well reasoned, as a !vote, and see where that takes you. I do have an opinion but don't see much point in adding it to an open-ended discussion.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Followup

Abecedare, this was a sensible, wise and courageous move but I wanted to be sure you knew that when you effected this removal, you missed same on the subpage that feeds the main page. Since your edit on the main page seems to have stuck, maybe getting the subpage as well would not be controversial. As all of the threads are closed, your talk page appears the best place to raise this query.

I hope that having the questionable record removed from an official Wikipedia page will provide some closure to all who have felt mistreated, because even people relatively on the margins of the entire matter were negatively affected by the way the case was left hanging and claims that were made versus those that were not allowed to be discussed transparently. In my case in particular, I submitted private evidence to the arbs (not because I wanted it to be private, but because I felt that one arb forced me to make it private under what felt to me like threat of sanction); that evidence was undeniably credible, affected multiple entirely different third parties, and has always been the most troubling aspect of the case to me (the way a third party was used and the way I was treated for raising that issue even with very credible evidence).

Anyway, the purpose of my post is only to ask if you also want to delete the entry on the subpage, and although I don't want to continue the conversation any further than that, I should probably courtesy ping both Kolya Butternut and Barkeep49 (who is aware of the private evidence I submitted and probably understands why I found that aspect of the involvement of a third party so troubling, followed by accusations leveled at me for having raised the issue even with credible evidence). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have the advantage/disadvantage of having no knowledge of the real life-situation of the editor(s) involved, or even the events on-wiki that led to their departure, beyond KB's posts yesterday and this arbcom statement from 2021. So my thinking about the issue, which I'll spell out below, has really been in-the-abstract and not based on the particulars of this case. As I see if, there are two considerations to weigh:
  1. Risk of outing: As I understand it, the editor didn't explicitly reveal their identity on-wiki but it may be known/surmised by some. Therefore any "evidence" of the real-person being alive cannot be discussed on-wiki and even hinting at its existence carries the risk of outing the editor to rubberneckers whose curiosity is aroused. No person deserves that.
  2. Remembrance of contributions of deceased wikipedians: WP:DECEASED is a token of our community's appreciation/collective memory for significant contributors to the project (with IMO no expecttations that such a contributor be flawless). Blanking such a memorial should not be undertaken lightly.
Now in the scenario that the editor is not truly deceased but would like us to believe so (out of a wish to preserve their mental health, prevent real-life harrasment or in order to deceive), both the above considerations pull in the same direction and argue for removal of the editor's name/obit from WP:DECEASED. But what if the editor is truly expired? Then removal of their entry from WP:DECEASED not only "blanks their memory" to a certain extent but also possibly besmirches their name by suggesting that their death was a pretense.
Now, I truly don't know which scenario is true but decided that (a) the arbcom statement suggested that there is at least a dispute about the subject, and, more importantly, (b) the risk of outing is greater than any (possible) benefit to the editor/community of an on-wiki memorial. Hence my removal of the editor's name WP:DECEASED; and for the same reason, I'll go ahead and delete the obit since deleting only the link to it arguably creates a mess.
I want to be very clear that my deletion is not a judgement on whether the editor is truly alive or not. I haven't seen, let alone weighed, any evidence regarding that and frankly, am not interested in exploring that question. Nor is it a judgement on whether the editor "deserves" a memorial.
Finally, since all my thinking on this is done from behind a 'veil of ignorance' any uninvolved editor better informed of the facts is welcome to undo my actions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
All very sound reasoning :) I am also not privileged to know the full story nor have I seen the reliable sources discussed -- I only know the effect the case had on me for presenting legitimate evidence to the arbs, the things that were said to and about me on the case page, and I appreciate your willingness to consider the possibility that the DECEASED page might not have been correctly used.
On the separate, bigger picture, I have been troubled lately by numerous hagiographic entries at DECEASED and in the Signpost, but that's a whole 'nother matter. One that could warrant the community revisiting some time down the road. I have no concern when individual editors enter their one-sided and adoring comments on the talk pages of deceased editors, but when the Signpost and official Wikipedia pages become a one-sided hagiography for deceased editors, it's not politic for others to say, ummmm ... that was not exactly the case, because it's not nice to speak ill of the dead.
Thanks again for explaining your reasoning and attempting to remove this long-festering issue to a place of conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

russian invasion of ukraine

please remove the protection from the article . Is writing: this article is expanded-protected. And let the article be updated . Please go to my meeting . I won 't edit anything on wikipedia anymore . Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kiriuxa2002: Given the disruption that the article is subject to, it is unlikely that the protection can be removed from Russian invasion of Ukraine while the war is ongoing. However, you can still propose specific additions or changes to the article by submitting an edit-request. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
my intrusion phases are not updated due to the fact that the article is protected. therefore , I ask you to remove the protection from the article . Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kiriuxa2002: Please propose and discuss any changes you wish to make at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Repeatedly requesting the page to be unprotected is not productive. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstood me , I just want you to remove the protection from the article . And because of the fact that the article is protected, because of this, this article is not updated for me. I don't want to edit this article. Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kiriuxa2002: As long as you just want to read the article (and not edit it), the article protection (by which I mean WP:PROTECTION) should have absolutely no effect and shouldn't hinder you in any way. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by "article is not updated for me"? What do you see whan you click on Russian invasion of Ukraine? Abecedare (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The invasion phases have not been updated in the article since October last year . when I registered on wikipedia. here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine . In order for you to see it too . Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

SPI: Harry Sibelius

I've pulled back from further comments there, as I have nothing new to say, but I would like to point out that:

1) Both Harry Sibelius and WikiCleanerMan are posting exactly the same comments on the SPI and on the ANI report that HS opened on WCM, here. That's clearly one venue too many.

2) To a large extent, HS seems to be following the old tactic of "flooding the zone with [excrement]", possibly in an attempt to distract and confuse from the issue of whether they socked or not. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it certainly isn't aiding anyone in determining whether the evidence presented is sufficient or not. At this point, regardless of whether any of the IPs are HS, it seems to me that their comments there have edged over into being disruptive.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That SPI had fallen off my radar and I haven't read the reams of text posted since I last looked. I see that Bishonen recently warned the editors for their repetitive posts etc and if this conduct continues a block would be forthcoming based on the conduct on the boards alone. As for the socking/logged-out editing: the evidence I've seen is concerning but not WP:DUCK-levels; I think that borderline nature is why the SPI has remained open so long. Lets see if any of the other admins there or at ANI are ready to make a call on the socking or the editor's conduct overall. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE

I created THIS PAGE to organize my upload gallery long time ago, but now it has no use. this is a duplicated page. can you please delete it?

Please help me to delete it. Risantana (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Risantana: Since the page you wish to be deleted is on Commons, and not the English wikipedia, it would require a Commons admin to delete it (which I am not). In case you don't already know a Commons admin through your experience there, you can contact someone from the list at c:Commons:Administrators. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Request you to change your opinion on my ban

@Abecedare: What do I have to do to change your opinion? Please help me to get my ban removed. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: The ban needs to be appealed to either Bishonen, the admin who placed it, or to the larger community at WP:AE or WP:AN.
But speaking personally, I don't believe that the ban is likely to be overturned and, more importantly, I don't think that wikipedia editing is a good fit for you. I admire your sincerity and enthusiasm but, unfortunately, (a) not having access to the full text of the sources you wish to cite, and (b) having to use machine translation tool to read, summarize and communicate the snippets you can access, are two too big hurdles to surmount. I would recommend that you volunteer your time to some other project that is a better match. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Hi! This is regarding your revert on the said title's page on 16:48, 5 May 2023. Firstly, There exists a wiki page on the Chandrachud clan which I have linked to in my edit. It is a well knwon fact that the said surname belongs to the Marathi Deshastha Brahmin community, which is further reaffirmed by the article itself. In additon, my ForwardPress citation mentions his Brahmin caste too. Lastly, regarding WP:CASTEID, I do not see any concrete ruling on the matter and there exist plenty of pages on wiki regarding various castes of India and notable people from it. Hence, I belive your revert is not justified and I believe I deserve an elucidation. Thanks. ChaitanyaJo (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChaitanyaJo: As stated at WP:CASTEID, There is a clear consensus against including the caste of persons in biographies, if the caste doesn't have any impact on the person's life. And even in this case, there needs to be self-identification, which is reported by reliable sources per the biography of living people policy.
So unless you have a source (eg, a memoir or interview) in which Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud self-identifies as a Marathi Deshsastha Brahmin, the information does not belong on-wiki. Even apart from the CASTEID issue, drawing conclusions about caste based on last names is forbidden by WP:NOR and extrapolating from a source that says "X is a Brahmin" to claim in a BLP that "X is a Marathi Deshsastha Brahmin" is both source misrepresentation and a WP:BLP-violation. Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Going by your logic, how would you explain wiki pages of some of the eminent cinema personalities of India (cinema sector is just for example) such as Dadasaheb Phalke, Kamal Haasan and Sharman Joshi. All of them mention the caste details and the pages have been not been reverted till date. Please do clarify. ChaitanyaJo (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you believe that the content in any of these articles is not adequately supported by the sources, please remove it or bring it up on the article talkpage. Now that you know of the applicable policies, any help with the clean-up will be most welcome! Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm getting a whiff of the issue. If the cited source attests to the included caste information in the page, will it be retained? ChaitanyaJo (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@ChaitanyaJo: Just verifiability (i.e., having a reliable source mentioning it) is not sufficient to include caste information in BLPs. Think of it as Astrological signs. It is trivially easy to verify most celebrities' star-signs but we don't include such information in biographical articles as a matter of course. We mention that, say, an actor is an Aries, only if we can verify that (1) the actor believes in such a classification for themselves, and (2) then too only in the context of how them being an Aries has impacted their life or career (say, by influencing what roles they accepted). Same with caste. Don't include it as a just another essential fact on par with their birthday etc. Instead, at a minimum, see if the subject identifies with their purported caste and, additionally, if reliable sources explain how the caste has impacted what they are known for. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I understood. Thank you for explaining in detail. Just a final query, if I had gotten a topic-ban for adding this information(as you said in my talk page), would it be a permanent ban from editing the articles or timed? ChaitanyaJo (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@ChaitanyaJo: The breadth and length of any topic ban depends on the judgment of admin(s) placing it. I, and several other admins, though prefer the topic ban to be "indefinite", ie to be lifted only after the editor has shown that the restriction is no longer needed.
That said, I want to emphasize that such sanctions are not placed over innocent mistakes or even errors of judgment. Its only if an editor persistently refuses to, or is unable to, follow policy or consensus (especially after they have been made aware of the issue) is a topic-ban justified. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering all my queries and warning me. Have a great day! ChaitanyaJo (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange things

Check page history of Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Troll account blocked. Page protected. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Mughal textiles

I noticed that RAJIVVASUDEV has done the same thing they did with Farsh-i-chandani over at Nadiri - very minimal detail on the article subject, much more on the Mughal emperor. What's the best route to proceed in your opinion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't confirmed it myself yet but if the Nadiri article has the same issues as Farsh-i-chandani (not only in terms of content of the current version of the article but in there being no significant coverage in reliable sources), then I would suggest (1) first simply asking the editor if they agree to a merge, and if they don't then (2) starting an AFD so that other can weigh in in. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC) (Pinging AirshipJungleman29. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) )

Protection for page: Battle of Sirikot (1824)

I would like a indefinite protection for Battle of Sirikot (1824) requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access to prevent vandalism to popular pages and edit-warring. Here is the link to this page below:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sirikot_(1824) Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't pre-emptively protect pages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Festivalfalcon873: Additionally, the article has multiple issues:
  1. It is largely plagiarized from this 1908 work, which is a dubious and dated source (search for past discussions at WP:RSN about Raj Era sources including gazetteers and see this summary).
  2. Other parts are plagiarized from this book, which again is a dubious (hagiographocal) source. And it is copyrighted, so the plagiarism constitutes copyright violation
  3. Interestingly, neither of the above-mentioned sources, nor the source you cite for the first sentence, mention a "Battle of Sirikot" by that name (afaict); so evidence has to be presented this is a term is accepted by histrians for the campaign and not a neologism created on wikipedia
  4. Other sources are straight up unreliable such as this "journal" published by Lulu.com, a notorious print-for-pay publisher.
  5. And I don't know why you have cited a pair of sources for roughly each sentence since in all the cases that I checked, the sentences were an insufficiently rephrased copy of content from one of the two cited sources.
  6. (minor) also many of the references were incorrectly cited, mis-attributing authorship to www.DiscoverSikhism.com, when that's simply the organization that has uploaded (in some cases, copyrighted) books onto archive.or
@Ohnoitsjamie: I believe the current article needs to be moved to Draft space where the above listed (and other) issues can be fixed and the draft independently reviewed before being moved back to mainspace. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I had serious concerns about the sourcing myself; didn't catch the copyvio issue though, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for Draftifying. I have copied over my comments to the draft's talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie @Abecedare: From my understanding there seems to be issue with some of the sources used and possible requirement of rephrasing the words to avoid plagiarism, in particular the source "Gazetteer Of The Hazara District by Chatto & Windus. London 1907" work that you mentioned. However, from this logic then the Battle of Nara (1824) page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nara_(1824)) is also insufficiently rephrased and plagiarized, with usage of incorrect dates, insufficient citing of sources for the aftermath tab, along with using the 1907 work more then 6 times should be prompted back to the draft space. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Festivalfalcon873: I wouldn't be surprised if what you say is indeed the case, and not only with respect to Battle of Nara (1824). I see that Ohnoitsjamie has already moved the article to draft space and attempted a clean up. Even after that, at a quick glance, the draft is pretty poorly sourced and contains incomplete/incorrect citation, which makes it further difficult to check the quality of sources and verify that they support the article claims. I would highly recommend that the involved editors start future drafts in draftspace rather than mainspace. Let me know if you have any specific questions. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hanshingling again ?

Good day Abecedare !! I briefly came across this ShriBalajji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and based on my previous experience, I am confident enough that this is another sock of Hanshingling. Same target articles and Gujjar pov pushing with similar edit summaries - Shri Balaji & Shri Balaji on Bhadanaka Kingdom quite similar to the previous socks with similar edit summary i.e. citations - Hanshingling. Obvious WP:Duck. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi dear Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀)
I am not a sock of anyone I just explain and revert one of your changes on Hindu shahis as you revert some selectively being biased toward Rajput caste changes because your changes involded in removing of sourced content and nuetral point of view regarding the of the Hindu shahis dynasty and its very unfair to call someone as sock just because if he or she doesn't agree with your concerns or Piont of views. ShriBalajji (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) Abecedare My concern was regarding the removal of nuetral point of view of other editors on wikipedia wich explained and already posted on your talk page. "Don't Remove sourced content or the miss use of the revert option as you did at Hindu shahis the first historical record of word Rajput appeared in written form In Mughal's chronicles in 15th to 6th Century like in Ain-e-Akbari written by Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak in the presences of Jodha Rajput and Akbar Mughal." ShriBalajji (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker: Yup, obvious sock. I have restored their message on this page for future record, but feel free to revert them elsewhere (esp. mainspace) per WP:BANREVERT. Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Gurjars

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Gurjars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Favorite

Must be nice to be recognized as someone's favorite. 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Would gladly forgo half of my admin-salary for more such compliments. :) Abecedare (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I know, right. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor

Hello, this editor Gopalchan45678 is making questionable edits on the page Punjabi Suba. I tried to start a discussion with him on the talk page [11], but he seems disinterested in interlocution. I'm wondering if the page could be fully protected and his most recent edits reverted, and he be asked to discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8: I have blocked the editor from that article for a week, encouraged them to discuss, and informed them that this is a contentious area. Note that while you are able to edit the article, be aware of WP:3RR, explain clearly any edits you make, and use the talkpage/dispute resolution to resolve any disputes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try to abide to BRD as best as possible. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing about India

Diplomacy, defense and economy are three different contents, which should be described separately. Moreover, the content of the original article is messy and outdated. It has not joined the important international organizations that India has participated in in recent years, and some organizations such as G8+5 have disappeared. Only the revised content can reflect Wikipedia The standards of major countries such as the United States, Japan, etc. are introduced as participating in the G20 and quadrilateral security dialogues, and so should India, and India’s cooperation with Europe and France should be introduced together (EU countries), not the United States, the United States and the United States. India's relationship is not attached to Europe Бмхүн (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Бмхүн: Lets keep this discussion on Talk:India. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pablo Escobar

Hi, I have mentioned you on Pablo Escobar's talk page about a discussion which I believe does not require any source because it is just a Spanish mistranslation. I would like to have your opinion. Best. ҢДMM®(Hundry Marquina!) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@HAMM: Not sure why you chose me to weigh in since I haven't edited the article or the topic area. But I took a look at the dispute and added my my 2c in any case. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me with my article Chanda dynasty. Because it is having difficulty in publishing, can you also look at the sources of Khoh kingdom for this? Your trusted partner KC. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I took a look at Draft:Chanda dynasty and am afraid that it has the same problem as what was discussed at Alan Singh AFD. It is unclear if they existed and, more importantly, nobody has discussed the historic/legendary dynasty at any length. There are only trivial mentions, in a sentence or two, in Tod (not a reliable source!) and later works that reference him such as Meena, Hooja etc. Given the state of sources this possibly justifies a short sentence, at best, in Meena or related articles but doesn't come close to satisfying WP:THREE. Abecedare (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda: I just recalled that you are topic-banned from "from all pages and discussions related to either India, Pakistan or Afghanistan", so the above discussion would constitute a tobic-ban violation that I inadvertently aided. I don't intend to report it but lets stop the discussion now and not ignore the restrictions any more. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting closure of Topic Ban Appeal

Hey Abecedare, just to know my appeal was archived without any closure of the summary of my appeal. I am just wondering whether you think you can take a look at it to review to decide whether you agree with my explanation? Thanks. NicholasHui (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bijou1995 Sockpuppetry

I am the user who reverted the edit of Bijou1995 on Adam Leitman Bailey, causing her to start an ANI and Arbitration against me before her eventual banning by you. For my own edification as an editor, what would have been the right thing to do when I reverted her edit initially? I asked whether the revert was done by a sockpuppet in the edit summary but would there have been a better course of action? I was hesitant to initiate a sockpuppet investigation myself (as a relatively inexperienced editor), but if it is the best thing to do going forward I will do that. Thank you in advance for your feedback and thank you for settling this matter! Iloveapphysics (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iloveapphysics: In terms of best practice, it is indeed advisable to raise sock-puppet suspicions at WP:SPI where they can be properly investigated and addressed. Or, if one is not too confident of the merits of the suspicion or unfamiliar with the procedure, one can ask an admin on their user-talkpage to take a quick look to see if the case is worth pursuing or dropping. If you choose the latter route, it is best, if possible, to approach an (active) admin who has previously dealt with the article and/or suspected sockmaster. In your particular instance, following links from the article history to BellaRumi1982 (talk · contribs) and their block log, one can determine that Blablubbs would have been the ideal admin to approach. Edit-summaries are considered a poor venue to voice suspicions because they are widely seen, don't provide enough space for context or evidence, are difficult to correct or take-back, and because the accused cannot easily respond to them (see WP:SUMMARYNO).
That said, the "error" you made is of the kind that almost all of us have made several times and the blowback you have received is IMO disproportionate to the severity of the mistake. So while you should try to keep the above in mind from hereon, don't fret too much about the singular incident. Wikipedia-editing is not always so drama-laden or adversarial. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Former Sock

I see that when I make a constructive edit, my edits are reverted with description that of sock. Why is that? And you allow edits by former sockpuppeter who used various accounts to make edits. He makes changes as he personally feels best. He reverts changes back to the way he made through his other sock accounts. See his history here [12]. You can view my edits and verify the sources that my changes are all constructive. So how can you put your trust on editor like him who is just using this privilege to add back the changes that were removed when he was blocked? Shouldn’t such editors be banned from making changes to all topics and articles that they vandalized before being blocked? What are your thoughts on this? 2600:1016:B006:387C:815E:E90A:74B8:5F71 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You have the option of stopping your abusive sockpuppetry and, like Suthasianhistorian8, requesting a standard-offer unblock. Until then, all your contributions are unwelcome on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately. this user is back with another sock account [13]. On top of that he's making false claims on this article [14] regarding the Battle of Amritsar. He seems to be absolutely unrelenting. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Commented at the SPI. Lets see what the CU says. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Can the pages 1987 Lalru bus massacre and 1991 Rudrapur bombings be protected? I posted on Requests for Page Protection, but unfortunately they got declined, most likely because the admin was unfamiliar with HaughtonBrit's history. He is disruptively editing the former page. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Semied for a month since 24.154.112.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:547:B03:4000:0:0:0:0/50 etc is clearly them. Can extend or raise to ECP if it becomes necessary. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I am great ful that you did not block my IP because this is used by me only. I told you before that there are multiple editors in my summer school who all live in same complex but I do not understand why you choose to ignore as admin. I also came to know of hartybrit person who is a sophomore and told him about the disturbance he caused but he said he has already been making edits with his account which he had for 3 yrs but he only uses that account when he goes back to his home state to not be able to get detected. He said he only uses IP changes or some sock accounts for now to create diversion. This has caused collateral damage to other editors. Some of the users who got blocked such as Pindi Singh, he found it amusing because it wasn’t him. I checked if there was any one using that account among others but did not find any. Other editor friends said are worried too that they can get blocked but probably did not get detected because they make edits to mostly Hindu articles and use the college IP address. Please do not block my IP. Please discuss with other admins. My IP is unnecessarily being dragged into this just like some other innocent accounts. 2600:1016:B02B:31D7:95C0:28BB:2BB:71DD (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Assistance: Restoration of Wikipedia Page Formatting

Edited by an User @2402:8100:31be:2085:3580:ab14:395:622b Albert P Xavier (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Albert for spotting the problem at Siddharthnagar district and bringing it to the attention of other editors.
As you may have noticed, the problem, which was caused by a missing closing ']' bracket, has been resolved by Prbitti's reverting the original edit. If you see similar issues in the future you are welcome to do the reversion yourself, ask for help at WP:TEAHOUSE where they'll guide you to a more specialized forum if needed, or approach me or any other experienced editor on their talk-page. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of a page

Hi! I had a query/request for you. According do Wiki's page creation policy, a article must have quite a few citations to support it, according to my understanding. I came across a page, K. Annamalai which is with regard to a erstwhile Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) all thw way in 2001. Th entire article has only two references and the personality is hardly prominent too. Frankly, I don't see this article having any relevance on Wikipedia. Hence, I would be grateful, if you could give me your opinion being an experienced editor and perhaps nominate it for speedy deletion. Thank you! ChaitanyaJo (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ChaitanyaJo: As a member of the state legislative assembly, K. Annamalai is presumed to be notable on wikipedia per WP:NPOL. Abecedare (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare I see, thanks for clearing it up. ChaitanyaJo (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on source reliabilty

Hi. If you don't mind, can you provide your opinion on the reliability of this source [15] which was published in 2014. The section used as a citiation in the page Battle of Mangal was written by Surekha- who at the time was a research scholar in the Department of History in Panjab Univeristy [16] (Please see the very bottom of the page). The registration date for her PhD scholarship was in 2011. From my limited understanding as I'm not familiar with the process of attaining a PhD, she completed her doctoral degree in 2019 [17], which would mean she was a PhD student while her work appeared in the IJR section. Does Wikipedia generally consider the work of PhD students who have not yet graduated as reliable? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8: Anything published by Lulu.com (a pay to publish outfit blacklisted on wikipedia) is dubious and the "International Journal of Research", which indiscriminately invites works by "Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Planners, Practitioners, Administrators, Scholars, Graduate and Post Graduate students", is particularly so. Technically anything published in this journal would be regarded as a self-published work and needs to be evaluated based on the expertise of the author etc. In this case, the author's credentials don't come close to overcoming the redflags raised by the venue.
PS: I recall commenting about IJR elsewhere on wikipedia recently, although I don't recall if it was about the same article. Will add a link if I manage to locate it. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will go ahead and remove the IJR sources and its corresponding content on the page. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's my earlier comment. And yes, it was about the same "article" although given the junkiness of the "journal", I had not even bothered to look into the authorship, what the article claimed etc. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban

Abecedare, you topic banned me a little while ago from India and Pakistan related articles (if I am right, that includes talk page discussions). Can I edit articles related to Afghanistan or Bangladesh (or Nepal)? Can I edit articles about Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism unrelated to India and Pakistan (for example, the articles on Islam or Christianity)? Can I appeal the topic ban after a couple of weeks, after making good edits to other articles?-1Firang (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I was seeking the input of other editors with my last edit/question at Talk:The_Kerala_Story#Reversion but has that been considered as "canvassing"?-1Firang (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: You can edit and discuss any topic that is unrelated to India and Pakistan, which would include most, but not all, articles related to Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Nepal. Most articles on Hinduism (and Sikhism, Jainism etc) are likely to fall within the ambit of the topic-ban since the scope of such bans are interpreted broadly. If in doubt, just ask me or any other admin. Also take care that the problems that led to the topic-ban do not recur because the next sanction is likely to be a wikipedia-wide block. I would recommend that you consult with your mentor to get occasional feedback about your edits.
And you can appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN anytime you wish if you believe that the topic-ban was incorrectly imposed, or that it is no longer needed. For the latter, reviewers typically expect at least 6-month of trouble-free editing although that is not a written rule. Abecedare (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I'll try my best.-1Firang (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can I edit any of the various articles related to British Grooming_gangs (I am asking because it involves British Pakistani males)?-1Firang (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can I edit the articles on Sajid Javid or Rishi Sunak? What about the article on Akshata Murty?-1Firang (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: The Quilliam (think tank)#Grooming gangs will fall within your topic-ban, especially given some of the articles that led to the problem. Edits about, say, Sunak's or Javid's views on Brexit would be fine, but since you asked about Akshata Murty too, I suspect that you are more interested in the issues of their South Asian heritage, family and related controversies. If so, that would again be covered by the topic-ban.
It would be best to find some genuinely new areas of interest rather than just shift from South Asia to South Asian diaspora. Skating at the edges of the topic-ban is treacherous. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Talking of 'skating': [18] Note the link to a topic-banned article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: I'd seen that but I don't think its worth berating them about. They are asking about the mass-pings and if the responses keep them from repeating such disruptive actions, that's only for the good. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't know that a link to a topic banned article is also disallowed. Then can I be sanctioned further (which means I will be blocked from Wikipedia completely) even if I just type, Look at the article on, "The Kerala Story" without a link?-1Firang (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: Yes. Read WP:TBAN carefully (it is pretty short). Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks!-1Firang (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

My appeal against Topic Ban: Dympies

Hi Abecedare,

I got a notification from you on my talk page informing that you have topic banned me from all Rajput related articles. I respect your decision but still, I want to exercise my right to appeal here itself, on your talk page.

The diffs quoted in your ban notification are not convincing to me. Diffs like ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]), [29] have already been explained by me on talke page of Bishonen here. As explained there, most of the references to epics and rajaputra had been discussed by modern scholars in context of Rajputs. Also please go through these quotations from modern scholars which establishes a strong relation between rajput and rajputra. Thats why, I didn't find these "Early references" to be undue. If you or other admins think otherwise, you could have simply removed them. If you disagree with the re-positioning of the stuff, both the sub-sections could be re-merged. Was TBan the only option?

You have also objected to my removal of comments from LukeEmily and Trengabellum on Wikepedia Resource Request Forum. I have explained the same here. I maintain that WikiProject Resource Request Forum is not meant for discussing the reliability of sources. People who are active there are least bothered about the content of requested sources. I have been to that forum many times but I never saw such a behaviour. It was highly illogical on part of Trengabellum and LukeEmily to put negative comments about the sought book on that forum. There was never a blanket ban on JN Asopa. He is a senior author. References to his research work were already there in the article even before my first edit. Just because a reputed western scholar disagrees with him over a topic, he doesn't get blacklisted.

You have also mentioned some other diffs of mine in support of your decision. My edit at Chamar ([30]) was just a bold edit which was done as per my understanding of the content. I found it undue, hence removed it. Some other user thought otherwise and hence reverted me. Then I didn't object. This is how things work. We do some edits; if reverted, then either we accept the other person's opinion or discuss it at talk page. Its part and parcel. I have never seen people getting banned for such behaviour.

My edit at Rajputisation ([31]) was genuine. The book is indeed related to the subject. I have got the support of another editor Akalanka820 on this who also agrees that the book is related to the subject. Due to this, the image is still there on page.

My edit at Rajputs in Bihar ([32]) was also a genuine one. Prior to my edit, this is how the source had been interpreted:

Legendary accounts state that from 1200 CE, many Rajput groups moved eastwards towards the Eastern Gangetic plains forming their own chieftaincies.

Now see what the source exactly says :

The rise of the Rajput notables to the north and south of the Bhumihars proceeded along similar lines. The process is only preserved in legend sometimes embellished by the Gothic imaginations of the nineteenth-century British ethnographers. From A.D. I200 onward, small Rajput bands moving from the western centres of Muslim power infiltrated and colonised the richer parts of the castern Gangetic plain.

The source doesn't say that the legendary accounts state it. So, it was essentially a WP:SYNTHESIS.

At around the same time when you sent me my TBan notification, I posted some diffs of LukeEmily here on Bishonen's talk page. Before taking any decision, please go through it to get an idea what kind of typical pov behaviors I have been subjected to. I hope you will consider all the above points and decide accordingly. At last, I wish to thank you for sparing your valuable time for me. Thanks and Regards, Dympies (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapse comment to which Dympies may not be able to adequately respond due to their TBAN. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Dympies,You are misrepresenting the edits and you also misrepresented the sources on Chitpavan. I have replied to your message point by point here. Do you think Whataboutism is the best way to continue? BTW, The edit on Rajputization is indeed WP:PUFFERY. That Raj era book by a Rajput caste member (not even a historian) is completely irrelevant to Rajputisation. He writes how he feels Rajputs are real Kshatriyas and others castes are not. Is that not glorification? The book itself is full of falsification of history. The book is not reliable and modern research shows that it is factually wrong. Does the book even use the word Rajputisation? Not likely since that term was probably coined in the 1960/70s. What does an early 20th century caste glorifying book written by a Rajput caste member have to do Rajputisation.LukeEmily (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


@Dympies: Here's my quick response:
  1. The diffs quoted... See my earlier comment about those edits.
  2. You have also objected... I don't object so much to your deletion but to ignoring the concerns that have been raised both on-wiki and in scholarly literature about that source. And framing the case for Asopa in terms of Western vs Indian scholars is a strawman.
  3. ...edit at Chamar ([33]) I would agree with this "just [being] a bold edit" if it didn't fit the pattern of caste-glorification through promotion of claims of the antiquity and royal origins of Rajput, and excision of criticism of members of the community.
  4. My edit at Rajputisation ([34]) I have seen you (correctly) removing dated sources citing WP:RAJ ([35], [36]). Yet, here you added an image of the cover-page of a 1904 book prominently displaying the disputable assertion that Rajputs were "the descendants of the ancient Kshatriyas" without providing any context based on modern scholarship.
  5. My edit at Rajputs in Bihar ([37]) As you quote, in the cited source Christopher Bayly specifically preface the 1200 CE claim with "The process is only preserved in legend sometimes embellished by the Gothic imaginations of the nineteenth-century British ethnographers."
I did see your post regarding LukeEmily although I haven't examined it in any detail. If you are interested in pursuing it, I would suggest making a report at AE where it may be examined by a wider group of admins since I am unlikely to be able to devote sufficient time to it this week (as you can imagine, such sifting takes hours, and LukeEmily is even more prolific in the area than you). If you need an exemption from the Rajput-related topic-ban, for the sole-purpose of filing such a report, just let me know.
Note though that your TBAN is not contingent upon LukeEmily, or any other involved editor, being above blame. So, I don't see a reason to lift your topic-ban at the moment but you are welcome to appeal it at WP:AN or WP:AE. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Abecedare, I have responded to the specific allegations made, point by point on that same page. Please could you review the response when you get a chance?LukeEmily (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: I won't be able to review the allegations/response due to paucity of time. Please don't take this as a comment on the merits of the accusations or as a "cloud" hanging over you. Unless Dympies wishes to pursue this further at an appropriate venue (which I wouldn't recommend per WP:NOTTHEM), I would recommend that we all move forward focusing on encyclopedia building. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre

So, yesterday I asked all participants of the ICTF discussion to !vote at the RSN thread and today, I get charged for breaching canvassing guidelines. Why? Because Lourdes feels that since the ICTF discussion had no naysayers, something must be off. This is either hubris or spectacular ABF once you consider that every single editor in the discussion has been editing for years and has written numerous FAs and FLs.

I won't reply to her shenanigans further; so, keeping you abreast. And, I have reverted her attempt to close the discussion after others have already !voted. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, she insists that the discussion remains closed because she has lost "confidence" in the discussion. I do not know what policy allows OPs to close discussions on such grounds but maybe, something exists. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam and Lourdes: All this is needlessly escalatory. Unfortunately, it seems that a relatively low-stakes issue has become a battle of wills. May I suggest that we just let the status quo (ie, closed discussion) stand for now. I can start a new RSN discussion and post the notifications at WP:ICTF and WP:EFN (any other board needed?); and, if you wish, I can even archive the pre-existing RSN discussion to avoid confusion. Will be 3-4 hours before I will be able to get to it though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
No issues from me but what a giant waste of time. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I have started a new RSN discussion and posted notification at WT:ICTF, WP:EFN and WT:BLIST since those are three three venues that I am aware of that the issue has been discussed previously. In the interest of a smooth discussion, may I request that involved editors avoid, (1) posting further notifications of the discussion (just ask me to do so, if you believe I missed something), and (2) avoid commenting on each other, or on meta-issues, at RSN. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hellow

Hellow Mr Abecedare, I wanted to add a information in Baidya page. I started a conversation for that also at the article's talk page, other editors also agreed with me. Can you please help me to add that. Joaquinreal (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Joaquinreal: I had recently added Baidya to my talkpage and have seen the discussion at Addition of related content section, which seems to be still ongoing. I believe Satnam2408 recent contributions have been particular useful, and the other editors can now chime in on the sources they presented and craft the appropriate language for any content to be added to the article (aside: it would be better IMO to do so based on modern scholarship rather than the more dated works like the Majumdar's 1947 book or Dutt's book that was published in 1962 but essentially represents work from around 1931). This may take a bit of time but always better to do a good job that gains wide consensus once, rather than have slow edit-wars that last years! Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. Thanks for your valuable advice. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This book https://books.google.co.in/books/about/A_Study_of_Women_of_Bengal.html?id=Yv0pAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y of sengupta (1970) says the same regarding sacred thread. Is it enough? Joaquinreal (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Joaquinreal: Best to discuss this on the article talkpage with other involved editors.
One general point though: it is not a good idea to first some up with a sentence to be added to the article and then just look for sources that seem to support it. The recommended approach is to find the best available sources on the topic and then summarize what they actually say. That is, if the proposed sources are being updated, one would generally expect the proposed content to be updated too. A subtle but important difference between "content being crafted to summarize sources" and "sources being used as a crutch to support pre-crafted content". Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
wow, thanks for your awesome guidence, I completely agree with you. Joaquinreal (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_25&oldid=1237238883"