G9H

G9H, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi G9H! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming G9H (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Dnyaneshwar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're same as User:Kpowar, please see WP:SOCK. utcursch | talk 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Utcursch why do you think I am Kpowar ? This is my independent ID . Do I have done any mistake in wikipedia , please help if you find anything unsuitable . G9H (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's your obsession with inserting the "Powar" / "Ponwar" spelling (which is an incorrect variant used in medieval or other obsolete books) for the Paramara dynasty, based on the sources that fail WP:HISTRS. "History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the Year A" is not a great source -- it is a reprint of an 1829 translation of Firishta's book, which is full of inaccuracies. State Gazetteers aren't great sources either. Modern scholarly, academic works are what you should be using as citations. utcursch | talk 13:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

To , User :Utcursch -- Thank you for your suggestion , but It's not mine obsession . I read earlier revisions and additions in these pages . I think Parmara is also not a correct name , it is actually Pramar . You have so much obsession for Parmara . I dont know why . I found Panwar/Ponwar/Powar/Pramar/ Parmara in many books even in references that are cited on Paramara related pages . Government department are also using the variant names . Literature by Bhats (bards ), local sayings , Peoples in Rajasthan , Malwa all are using variant name as Panwar पँवार for the same . Persian Ferishta and Mughal Historian Abu fazal use the Name as Panwar . I checked sanskrit literature and inscriptions , I could not find Panwar पंवार or Parmara परमारा there . Sanskrit literature specify "Pramar" "प्रमर" . Sanskrit was prominent language approximately up to 1200 AD . Afterwards , Prakrit , Hindi , Bagheli , Malvi etc languages were been started . I think Parmara , Ponwar , Puar , Panwar , Powar , Pammar are the corruption of Sanskrit word Pramar . But in this present era , Peoples in India use Panwar or Parmara as clan name of these kings . While studying , I found that Pramar is name of first person who take oath to Protect Society at Mount Abu during one Ceremony . You may not believe in Britishers work , but they were very curious about History and most of inscriptions and old monuments were discovered by them . At least we have to accept the findings of Archeological survey of India . Just think why these earlier medieval literatures are using Panwar . And why you are avoiding it to specify . We should be impartial . So much obsession for word Parmara is wrong . Whatever history we found should be stated . Let people read . Actually if you check History ,nothing can be judged perfectly on the basis of findings , Truth may be different . One can not give guarantee of writers . — Preceding unsigned comment added by G9H (talk • contribs)

"Paramāra" is the name of the dynasty in Sanskrit, which was the official language of the dynasty's records. "Parmar" and other variants are corrupted form of the name in the modern vernaculars (see Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages). Medieval bards, Persian-language historians like Abu'l-Fazl and Firishta, and colonial historians wrote centuries after the dynasty ended. These are not at all reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards (or any modern historian's standard, for that matter).

The dynasty's own records, as well as modern scholarly works (including the Archeological survey of India) use the name "Paramara", which is what wikipedia sticks too. Other Wikipedia articles also have titles close to original Sanskrit names: for example, "Ramayana", "Krishna", "Gautama Buddha" etc., not corrupted vernacular forms such as "Ramayan", "Krishan", "Gautam Buddh" etc. utcursch | talk 14:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

To , User :Utcursch -- Abu Fazal and Firista have written approximately during 1500-1600 , after about 300 years of dynasty rule . They must have used the correct prevailing names of that Dynasty . Mostly in sanskrit Pramar ( प्रमर:) word is used . Can you please give sanskrit source which uses name as Parmara ( परमारा ) anywhere . Why we should believe the recently written books . They may be biased .And modern writers are connecting Parmara to south Indian origin . I found that it is not correct . The descendants of this clan are found in Afghanistan , Pakistan, Nepal , Gadhwal , Uttar Pardesh , Rajsthan , Punjab, East Maharashtra , Madhya pradesh ,Hariyana etc . However , rule of dynasty was from Sindha to kanyakumari . I think we need to add this information about other variant names of dynasty of Parmara Kings in respective pages . I found that in many competitive examination books , panwar dynasty is written instead of Parmara dynasty . This makes a confusion . Please check whether is can be done through adding topic as "other account" . G9H (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference /source which is given in wikipedia Page Paramara dynasty (page no - 45 of book written by Krishna Narain Seth (1978). The Growth of the Paramara Power in Malwa. Progress. OCLC 8931757)also use the name Ponwar or Parmara . So why it is not being used for Bhoja's Dynasty . G9H (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refer Indian History Congress Proceedings. 1974. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) where it is said that Panwar is a corruption of word Pramar G9H (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your entire comment is a mix of bad knowledge of history and original research.

To begin with, the Sanskrit name is not परमारा: it is परमार (Paramāra). In Hindi, the word is written as परमार, but pronounced as पर्मार् (Parmār), because of schwa deletion (just like the word for "salty" is written as नमकीन / na-ma-kee-na, but pronounced as नम्कीन् / na-m-kee-n). In Sanskrit, the name of the dynasty is written and pronounced as परमार.

The Sanskrit spelling is found in the Paramara inscriptions: the ASI has a pretty good compendium of these: Inscriptions of the Paramāras, Chandēllas, Kachchapaghātas, and two minor dynasties. The vast majority of the modern sources (as well as Paramara records) use "Paramara": these include Krishna Narain Seth's book; the very title of the book is The Growth of the Paramara Power in Malwa, not The Growth of the Ponwar Power in Malwa. So, I'm not sure what your point is. The Proceedings of the Indian History Congress page that you've linked to is from an article about the Khyat of Patal Pota, which is a late medieval bardic text. The author of the journal article mentions the spelling "Panwar", because it is used in the Khyat text; other articles in the same journal use the term "Paramara".

Also, the dynasty did not rule the area stretching from "Sindha to kanyakumari", and its descendants are not found in Afghanistan. If you're getting this information from "competitive examination books", you should stop reading those books, and read some scholarly, academic books and journal articles.

I'm not going to waste any time arguing with you over this. If you're asking "Why we should believe the recently written books" over "Abu Fazal and Firista", you should not be editing history-related articles. Please read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS first. Feel free to get a third-party opinion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. utcursch | talk 14:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It means that whatever written in so many books by British writers ,bards documents , medieval documents , local sayings , Indian Government gazetteers , Indian writers , identification of descendants etc all are wrong and only whatever written by some writers is right and it is scholarly . Britisher work can be considered as unbiased work . I am not using any competitive exam books . But stating on the basis of so many available data which I do not find on Wikipedia . My only aim is to add all possible data on Wikipedia . I think Pramar or Parmar is correct Sanskrit name . Ponwar or Panwar are corruptions of Pramar . Wikipedia is using only one name ie. Parmar . Ponwar or Panwar is also to be added . Mr Utcursh is more stick to Parmara word , I dont know why ? . He is denying all other possibilities by giving so many wikipedia History rules Pages . Let us be fair in accepting the fact . All Parmar descendant says that they are Panwar by clan . I asked them . But this fact is hiding in wikipedia . This is because the topics are not written on the basis of actual findings . All are based on some works of writers which is not right . Topics should be based on Ground realities . Let the people know the fact .

Please refer , Krishna Narain Seth's book page no 45 (* Growth of Paramara power in Malwa. 1978. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) which is already used as a reference on Parmara related topics . He says Ponwar or Parmara in his book . So , it should be used on all paramara related topics .

Please refer , referenced book of wikipedia page Paramara dynasty -- Page 138 of book “ Princely States of India: A Guide to Chronology and Rulers” by Mr David P. Henige , Published by Orchid Press, 2004 -- * Princely States of India: A Guide to Chronology and Rulers. 2004. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) G9H (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User :Utcursch I agree with you . But please clarify that Ponwar , Panwar , Powar , Punwar and Parmar are different or same.

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

G9H (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet of Kpowar . I have not done any wrong action on wikipedia . If I am talking about any matter on wikipedia with admin does not mean that I am violating the rules . I have not deleted any data , and not done any illegal action . Admin Mr Utcursh is not accepting any addition in some pages and I was putting my views on it which should not be the reason of block .Please unblock the ID as it was friendly discussion . Nothing more than that . Thank you G9H (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are obviously somehow connected to Kpowar. You have to explain that connection. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

{{Checkuser needed}}: Can we compare this account to Kpowar and HistoricalQuest? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kpowar and HistoricalQuest are  Confirmed to each other, and G9H is very  Likely. I could probably work out a series of range blocks if necessary, but it would be time-consuming. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Now , it is confirmed that Whoever talk about matter of Paramara / Panwar dynasty will became a sock puppet of KPowar .Thanks G9H (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)