User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 42

Deletions

Could you tell me which part of the article has been copied? The entire article has been written citing sources. i had also given proper secondary sources for each part. Instead of flat out deletions it would be helpful to the community if there could be some productive discussion. I have made a snabox entry -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGJ/sandbox. Please let me know what corrections/alterations are needed. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGJ (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. But do note that productive discussions are possible only if you don't keep repeating the same cycle (reinstating an article, re-adding references that have been removed as inappropriate, etc.). As I suggested earlier, working with a draft is a better idea. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank You. Please let me what corrections are needed. DGJ (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@DGJ: I found a 64% match between your text and the one at [1]. The sentences are also very similar with only minor differences and, so, the material does consititute a copyvio. However, you have new sources and a rewrite of the text should solve the problem. I'll make a few changes to the lead as a start. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote a part of the history as well but kept the earlier content so that you can grab the references. Please check it for accuracy, clean it up, and rewrite as you prefer. But, this approach will keep it free of copyvio. Also, don't use primary sources (for example, the original text of various police acts). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I finished the edits needed for the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGJ/sandbox . Kindly go through it and let me know if it's ready for publishing. Thank You. DGJ (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, RegentsPark. I have looked at the draft and its sources, and I have a number of pieces of information and advice to offer to DGJ, but I don't have time to write them out now. Since you have become involved in this, I'll let you know when I do post my comments. JBW (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JBW:. @DGJ: I won't have a lot of time over the next couple of days but will take a look at the draft. Please be patient while JBW and I get to it.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You will probably get notifications of the fact that I mentioned you twice at User talk:DGJ, but since I told you I would let you know when I posted there, I am making sure you know. I'm afraid the comments I have written were much less encouraging than what I originally intended to write, in the light of further facts I discovered. JBW (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Thanks for the note. They went and created the article over a salt, that too without informing either of us? Not a good sign. Also, you mention a COI, another problem. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look through their article and check the references (I assume they haven't used the earlier copyrighted text) till this weekend, and I'm not sure I should bother anyway, but your summary looks good. Perhaps salt the alternate name as well? --RegentsPark (comment) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Transnational Hindutva

Are pages like this covered under ARBIPA sanctions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. But BLP does apply. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The campaign. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can put it under EP, we can try and clean it up. Otherwise, it will be swimming against the tide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. But, the article itself has little about IPA. I've semi-protected it for a bit. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

For the fast service. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman: No problem. Hope all is well (and, of course, if you want it back, you just have to ask!)--RegentsPark (comment) 18:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hello RegentsPark. JBW has suggested further changes in the article. If anymore are needed, please let me know.

Thank You

DGJ (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

sengupta article

first of all happy new year hope you are doing absolutely fine. please check the Sengupta article where trangabellam and ekdalian removed my well-sourced content. I provided the source on the talk page of that article. thank youMiller110 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Miller110: You removed a thread from User talk:TrangaBellam and you can't do that. I see you've been reported at WP:AN3 so you will, hopefully, see some resolution on Sengupta. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

don't know I can't do that. I apologize for that.Miller110 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Rajput

Why did you remove the source information? 2409:4053:2D83:2120:0:0:5789:560C (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to suggest your changes. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahir

I added the information according to the source so why did you remove it? i will protest against you 2409:4053:2D83:2120:0:0:5789:560C (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, you can use Talk:Ahir to get consensus for your edits. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Update

Hello. Any update would be appreciated DGJ (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DGJ:. I'm a bit busy in RL so this will have to wait. Will try to get to it later this week. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@DGJ: RL has gone a bit crazy so the next two weeks or so are out. Sorry! --RegentsPark (comment) 19:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Indian Air Force

Can you please review the article on Royal Indian Air Force for any errors. Cookersweet (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cookersweet: I'm not going to have the time for the next couple of weeks. Fowler&fowler may be able to take a look. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. 👍 Cookersweet (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in Bhoi dynasty, Ramachandra Deva I and Routray

User:AuthenticSources2546 has been making disruptive edits to the above mentioned pages. They're a newly created id and I suspect they're a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. They've been deleting citations from the same pages and replacing them with blog posts. They've also removed the protection template from the Bhoi dynasty page. Please look into it. Solarson919 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

im not vandalizing these pages you are the one who is engaged in such activities ,first you remove isbn certified sources then you are saying n patnaik is a historian which he is not he is an anthropologist do your research properly before reverting my edits which are authentic — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthenticSources2546 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@AuthenticSources2546 and Solarson919: I'm a little busy but took a quick look. First, both of you are labeling each others edits as vandalism which is not appropriate and I suggest you focus on discussing the content instead. About the content, AuthenticSources2546, your sources do not appear to be WP:RS. Publications by the government of Odisha, https://historyofodisha.in, are not considered to be reliable sources. @Vanamonde93: to take a better look. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm very much use here...historyofodisha.in is clearly not reliable. The other books may or may not be, it very much depends on the author's qualifications; I'm not seeing a priori reasons to assume reliability or unreliability, though I'm particularly hesitant about the source used here. Perhaps Sitush would take a look? The accusations of vandalism are a problem, and need to stop; but I'm not seeing support for the "Blog posts" claim either. Really both participants need to talk about this like reasonable people... Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As per kc panigrahi bhoi rulers were of either karana or gopala descent as ramachandra Deva 1 was associated with yaduvamsa he doesn't mention the word khandayat with regards to their origin u guys can check this detail from the citation itself that is present in that article...also n patnaik is not a historian he is an anthropologist I've given the link in talk page for u guys to check his qualification ....his book also contradicts with other sources that are cited in the bhoi dynasty page as he claims that govind vidhyadhara was installed on the throne because gajapati prataprudra Deva had no heirs which is not true according to other reliable sources that are already present in the article as per the other sources prataprudra Deva did have heirs namely his son kaluadeva and his younger brother both were installed on the throne but were murdered by Govinda vidhyadhar....check the citation by n patnaik then comment..also the shakti cult source which mentions them to be of karana writer caste lineage was present in this article from the very start still u say that the sources didn't comply with the Wikipedia terms and policies ...the reality is you are just distorting this article by presenting the citations present in that page in their distorted form...I say it again bhoi dynasty page is vandalised by solarson919..good luck distorting history AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also KC Panigrahi was a highly qualified historian from Odisha his analysis should always be taken as the authority over others. AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

1. One historian can't be taken as "authority" over others. 2. According to Wikipedia policy, if multiple sources say many things about a topic, all views should be represented in th article concerned. And you shouldn't have removed the user protection template from the Bhoi dynasty page

Solarson919 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You're just a vandaliser let the admin check my points of argument ...they are all to the point even u know that.. AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

1)u say historian kc panigrahi claims bhoi rulers to be of khandayat descent which as per his book is not true he says bhoi rulers were of either karana or gopal descent he nowhere mentions the word khandayat..admin can check the citation given in that page itself. 2)u say n patnaik is a historian which he is not he is an anthropologist admin can check the link given by me regarding n patnaik's qualification in the talk page. 3)shakti cult source was present on that page from the very start still someone said it doesn't comply with Wikipedia terms and policies..admin can check the history of bhoi dynasty page to confirm whether I'm right or wrong.3) regarding sources which mentioned them to be of writer caste lineage ,all these sources are isbn certified and if these sources don't comply with wikipedia terms and policies then u must remove the n patnaik source as well since it also has isbn certificate on it.4)n patnaik source contradicts with other sources already present in the article as he claims govind vidhyadhar the minister of prataprudra Deva was installed on the throne because prataparudra had no heirs which is not true as per other sources prataprudra did have heirs who were installed on the throne namely his son and his younger brother but both of them were murdered by govind vidhyadhar this event is not present in his book he directly claims that vidhyadhar was installed on the throne because prataprudra had no heirs.admin can check the sources which are already present in the article regarding this event.5)since someone mentioned that sources from political website cannot be sited then u must remove n patnaik source as well as he is also associated with bjd the political party of odisha...look through the points given above and then draw your conclusion.

AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This user solarson has got some serious issues he's constantly vandalising bhoi dynasty page removing valuable sources also claiming n patnaik to be a historian and saying kc panigrahi mentions the word khandayat with regards to bhoi rulers lineage this is a clear form of vandalism done for some hidden motive , humble request to the admin to look into the above matter ... I've already given my points of argument in the talk page of bhoi dynasty look into it and then decide who's right or wrong....also the current page edited by me is the most accurate form of representation of all the information provided by different citations which are already present in the article contrary to what solarson919 is doing he is representing the information provided in the sources in their distorted form to fulfill his own personal agenda...admin plz look into it.. AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review and publish the important page

Satyendranath Tagore was a composer, writer, linguist and first ICS Officer. The page (Satyendranath Tagore) was created many years ago, but surprisingly the page was removed from the Wikipedia by someone. Please publish it. See a link here. Wikifulness (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikifulness: That article was deleted because of copyright issues (See [2]). You can create a new, clean, version anytime.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok.Thanks. Wikifulness (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

CIR issues

A block is prob. warranted: see this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Though the thread did give me a headache, this is a tough one. I see many edits that haven't been reverted. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Trangabellam asked you to warn another wikipedia editor.but instead of him/her you warned me at my talk page.please confirm It,what I have done wrong? I didn't revert anything and edited the baidya article as advised by senior editor Trangabellam.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Something might be wrong

I think you gave me wrong warning.I didn't revert any thing. Nobita456 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: I could be mistaken but aren't you just re-adding names removed by @TrangaBellam:?

RegentsPark please check the edit summary of trangabellam where he told me to readd the names and advised me to not add citations because in main article of that names it it already there.so I re added them but this time didn't add any citation.also I removed some names where in main articles they were not mentioned as baidyas.I will remove more names if don't find them suitable according to trangabellam suggestions.thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it. My bad and apologies. I'll strike out the warning. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for understanding.good night 🙏. Nobita456 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Just another Wikipedian editor. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In reply to your notice

Thank you for messaging me and letting me know on my talk page. However, based on my recent discussion with this person, he seems to have no interest in correcting the intentional damage that his efforts are causing. His refusal to respond to my reply to his message further leaves me to believe this. Anytime someone searches up "Subhas Chandra Bose", the first thing they will see is Netaji's name being tied with "anti-Semitism", "authoritarianism", and "military incompetence", none of which are true and can easily be disproven. I appeal to the admins to look into my side, we may even have a discussion, because this is unacceptable and Wikipedia should not be exploited to suit one's own disdain and ignorance towards a top leader in India's freedom struggle, no matter how controversial he may be. Not even Hitler's Wikipedia knowledge panel is this degrading or biased. I would love to discuss with you further on Discord or Twitter DMs. Pranath vir (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pranath vir: The bottom line here is that admins don't act on content issues and if you accuse other editors of being biased, you'll be in trouble, regardless of whether you're right or wrong on the content. My suggestion is that you focus on the content. The material that you're contesting appears to be well sourced, so you'll need to read the sources to see if they support the use of the descriptors you're contesting and whether they are a significant enough viewpoint (see WP:DUE) to include in the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I understand. I am not saying that the content should be in praise of Bose or be written from an admirer's point of view, but to see these edits, right when this figure is starting to be celebrated more, is frustrating. At this point it feels intentional, and the overwhelming majority of people who know about Bose will agree with me on this. I feel that the moment that I change it to something else, it will be reverted back with admin's support. I don't know much about the actual community on Wikipedia, that is why I came to you about it. I will try to compromise a proper change and try to avoid any temptations of personal charges. Thank you for the useful information you've sent to me.

Hi nobita here

Asking you for a favour.If some editers revert my sourced content and say I can't cite them even they are WP:RS what should I do? I even initiate a talk page discussion but they didn't agree with me and then I put them on that article under WP:NPOV.but they revert them.I mean in that case what should I do? Nobita456 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume this relates to Baidya? Not everything that is WP:RS needs to be included in an article so you probably need to make the case that the material is important enough for inclusion. If that doesn't convince them, you'll need to seek dispute resolution. Just make sure you don't edit war because that will definitely get you blocked. And, it may not be a bad idea to broaden the range of articles you edit as Bishonen suggests.--RegentsPark (comment) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much RegentsPark for guiding me and showing me the exact process.it was really helpful for me.tannks again. Nobita456 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Missed blocks

Hi RegentsPark, thanks for protecting the talkpage. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of alarm set for when the protection re-expires, but so it goes. If possible, could you also block [3] and [4] who were missed. It's probably also worth noting that this is not Eiskrahablo, but WP:LTA/INTSF. Best, CMD (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the user but left the IP alone (watching). I just assumed that the editor was the same one that you reverted but will change the block in a bit. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the telltale fascination with sexual acts that gives it away. CMD (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

IP mixup

I had too many tabs open, and mistakenly welcomed an IP range (here), instead of the intended IP 94.252.4.105 (talk · contribs), thus precipitating the spam you removed from my UTP. Sorry for the mixup, and thanks for the intervention.

P.S. Didn't even realize you could create a Talk page or leave a message for a range; how does that even make any sense? Maybe the mw software should prevent that? Should I add something to WP:VPT about it? Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand how ranges work and was wondering how you got there. I guess you could leave a message at the village pump but, I assume, normally no one looks for a range talk page. The IP followed you there otherwise they too wouldn't have found it. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are already pinged there, so this is just a convenience link for the record. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPT § IP range talk pages

Purans and Myths

Can we please remove the puran story and myths in caste-related articles? These purans has no value, even modern historians mentioned these purans as a tool of castism.sitush made some rules before and I think it is high time for you to make some decisions. please I am urging you not to let these purans in those sensitive caste articles. we should focus on the history of those castes. Baidya is a prime example in this case. Nobita456 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, the caste system would not exist without the Puranas and they had impact on different communities historically - that is why they are mentioned so often by historians. Please see Klostermaier's comments. TB has already explained on the Baidya talk page that he is not referring to Puranas as a primary source. He is using modern academic scholarly sources to refer to Puranas. Another editor (Safron710)made exactly the same point to RegentsPark here last but not the least PURANS are myths and should not be considered in this sensitive caste article. Safron710. And in that context, on another talk page, TrangaBellam said here I have not cited Brh. P. or Ch. Ma. or Bv. P. but modern scholars who have cited them in the context of the subject of this article. (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021. The entire article is based on scholarly sources. No Puran has been referenced directly. Puranas were India's way of writing very old history and they were taken literally(historically). As a friendly suggestion, I recommend that you find opposing sources rather than trying delete sourced academic content.Ekdalian's page says that he lives in Bengal hence I think he might be able to help with the sources or may have more context. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks @LukeEmily: for explaining this. I was puzzled by Nobita456's comment but understand it now. @Nobita456:, if there are any direct references to the Puranas, then they should be removed (other things being equal). Otherwise, you're going to have to take this up on a case by case basis on article talk page. No administrator can make content decisions. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily I also live in bengal I also know it.anyway thanks guys for your opinion.You guys are right if modern scholers mention them,they wikipedia can't do anything. Nobita456 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Vandalism by IP

Sir this article would require protection in my opinion [5], [6] . This IP made similar unsourced changes (Lithuania related) in this and this, the former got protected. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good to see that you're back! --RegentsPark (comment) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was quite busy . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable publishing houses

I was wondering about Popular Prakashan, specifically the source used here (obviously not a wikipedia mirror!). --RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Popular Prakashan is an extremely old publishing house, and so I wouldn't put them in the same category as Gyan or Lulu. Having said that, for my search criteria, I set the year range at 1948 -2008.That way I can avoid citing raj era sources, as well the ones published after 2008 (when Wikipedia really took off) that use Wikipedia content. Unfortunately, for topics such as politics there is no choice but look at everything. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure so this is helpful.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In a bad faith report

Hi, I had posted on the Arbitration request page [7] but on second thoughts I am putting my question here as it is not a statement. Why can't the defendant put his side of the story and behavioral issues of the other party? One side can implicate the other and the defendant has a 500 word limit to reply which gets exhausted just by the response to the allegations. What is the right way for the defendant to bring to light the bad behavior of the accuser? Hemantha had asked a question along these lines in the section above. But no admin responded yet. I am genuinely curious about this answer since such a filing is considered retaliatory. Based on what I am seeing these rules of "Arbitration request" appear to be skewed and provide a first mover advantage to the filing party. And no doubt the filing parties are using it to their full advantage. Why won't they? The filing party seems to think there is no risk in filing these twisted arbitration requests. Venkat TL (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I'm not keen to see any sort of sanctions on any of the involved editors but multiple filings just ends up becoming a mess that tends to increase the probability of that happening. Given Kautilya3's long history of productive editing in the IPA realm, I don't see them being sanctioned because of behavior issues on one or two articles. That leaves Hemantha (and, to a lesser extent, you) exposed to the impatience of admins. I don't think that's a good idea either. We'd all be a lot better off if this were taken back to article talk pages. I'm pinging @Vanamonde3: for their thoughts as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Fix @Vanamonde93:--RegentsPark (comment) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RP's entirely correct, I think. There isn't a formal reason why you shouldn't file another report, but I don't think either those reports are helpful in this circumstance. VenkatTL, I suspect you think I have it out for you, but please believe me when I say I believe all three of you (Kautilya3, Hemantha, and yourself) have positive contributions to make, and that de-escalation will serve you better than enforcement. I don't think anybody's behavior on that article has been ideal; if sanctions are handed out, they will likely be levied on more users than you'd like. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde I dont think you have it out for me, but Kautilya3 is seeking to get others blocked here. If Kautilya3 has 'long history of editing ' experience, then they should not be running around seeking blocks for users engaged in content disputes (first against me and now against Hemantha). I doubt this is going to go away until Kautilya3 stops seeking blocks, or the admins act and ask him to stop. Venkat TL (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha has withdrawn his filing. Venkat TL (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wasn't seeking anybody to get "blocked". I just needed the haranguing to stop. The badgering you guys had done last week took a heavy toll on my work life as well as my health. All this for trying to cotribute to the best of my ability to a page that was in absolutely miserable shape when I started. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits

Hey regendspark I edited many articles also except Baidya please see Baisha saha and other surname articles which I cleaned up. currently I am not editing in Baidya article I am working on Bengali Kayastha to get a consensus and will edit after that, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nobita456. These articles also appear to be in the general Bengali caste sphere (I could be wrong). It would have been helpful if you had taken up some non-caste interests. Anyway, let's see what other editors post on WP:AE.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right, I live in Bengal so I have knowledge about its caste system.caste system of bengal is very unique and interesting. also in middle of that I am continuously defending myself against the daily allegations.so it is very hard for me right now to broader the edit range. Please also don't forget I am editing in wiki since 1 month,so I am still learning about its rules, thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

suggestion needed

Good morning Regendspark. I proposed to add a medieval varna status subsection in the Bengali Kayastha article ( we already have Colonial and modern varna status subsections in that article). fellow editors Chanchaldm and Satnam agreed with me regarding that and suggested we should add the purans and literature views also which is important for their origin matter see 1 2 even lukeEmily agreed initially and said my edits are well-sourced. But only Ekdalin is not wanting to add that section. I even initiated an RFC but the response was close to nothing. so in that case what we should do? Purans and Literature views are present in Baidya article also. Please tell Ekdalin not to revert my relevant and sourced content. Nobita456 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Talwinder Singh Parmar needs renewal of semiprotection

The article Talwinder Singh Parmar that you have previously semiprotected seems to need further protection from vandalism. Fachidiot (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: can you look at the page Kaur, a user by the name "online sikhi siphai" keeps adding inappropriate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navjottt (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source

I looked at this source that you removed considering it as self published source in article Kaur. After reading about the publisher, they say that "we're neither traditional publishing, nor are we self-publishing." [8] Thoughts? MehmoodS (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@MehmoodS: The company offers packages for publishing and, while it provides editing services, it does not appear to have any selection criteria. In short, if you write a book and are willing to shell out $8,500, they'll publish it. Definitely a self published source. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

TBan needed

Not up to any good. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

More cluelessness or trolling. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Abhiraka

Hi RegentsPark. Could you kindly protect the Abhiraka article, which is subject to slow-edit warring? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Any idea what this edit summary means? --RegentsPark (comment) 01:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No I don't. He is now vandalizing my User page too: [9]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark @पाटलिपुत्र, The blocked guy is Saying in the edit summary that he will expose the Randputs. This word appears to be a bastardized form of Rajput. Rand meaning prostitute. Obvious vandal and good block. Scrub the edit summary too. Venkat TL (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone offers to sell your account

Hello RegentsPark,

I just banned a user from the German Wikipedia who tried to sell his account on ebay. Discussing the event, we noticed that someone is offering your account here (amidst others, but they are not admins, even though the offer suggests otherwise — @Elli, Jorrojorro, Pschaeffer, Slavuta33, and RHB100: those seem to be yours). Probably it's a fake, but you should know anyway. Greetings, --Gardini (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Gardini how is it possible? is the password compromised? Venkat TL (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, it might as well be a fake. It's easy to manipulate screenshots like these, and most of the accounts are not even admin accounts, so the offerer is lying anyway. Perhaps he just wants to lure stupid people into sending them money, and disappear after that. (The offer on ebay concerning the German account was quite different, much more plausible: otherwise I wouldn't have blocked it immediately.) --Gardini (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gardini thank you. In any case, a password reset might be helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We are getting a new OpIndia article, tomorrow - about how leftists, funded by George Soros, have managed to infiltrate into Wikipedia by purchasing admin accounts etc. Let's see if my prediction game is strong. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gardini, Venkat TL, and TrangaBellam: I am certain they do not have access to my account. I have contacted Wikimedia T&S about this, hopefully they can help with the situation. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks @Gardini:. Probably (hopefully!) a fake. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision Deletion needed

Shigar Fort - check edit history and my recent removal. The copy-vio stayed for over seven years. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I revdel-ed your edit but I'm not sure that will do anything since your edit was not a revert. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to revdel to this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Done.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

SemiProtection needed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaiti Narula: Too many newbies for comfort with the discussion being advertised at Twitter. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Protection needed

Hi RegentsPark! Could you consider protecting Gautama Buddha, and take the necessary steps with User:Usoejw9. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the offending editor. Sadly, looking through their edit history, the prognosis is not good going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please take necessary steps

Hi, RegentsPark! Can you take necessary steps with User: पाटलिपुत्र? I've given a reliable source yet he reverted it. This was the source which he reverted.

References

And this is the same source some wiki editors are agreeing with. But when I proved that Buddha was a Hindu by birth from the same source given by पाटलिपुत्र, he reverted it. Usoejw9 (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The official publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not a reliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Prithviraj Chauhan

Check out the talk-page. Walls of text are being hurled at each other and I spotted at-least a couple of BLP violations (check Packer&Tracker's comments on Eaton/Talbot). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a cursory look and, yes, it is a mess. Will check back later in a few hours. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I dropped a warning on their talk page but you're right about the complete mess. Also, I happened to scan the discussion from 9 months ago and isn't there a possible socking issue here? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Maratha-Mysore War (1682)

Hello RegentsPark, need help in protecting this page as it has been persistently disrupted by user Amruth7676 who keeps removing and altering information as well as removing citation. Can you please take action against such persistent disruptive editing please? MehmoodS (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@MehmoodS: I've warned them and will watch the page. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That page is very dubious. See sections 2 and 3 of Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: In what sense dubious? Was there no such war? I do see that the article you've linked to seems to make no mention of a war between Shambaji and Mysore.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The late 17th century was a period of shifting alliances in the Mysore region, the southern region of the former Vijayanagara empire. There were no wars really, not even famous battles, just periodic raids by the powers to the north to collect taxes (tribute) or attempt to rearrange suzerainty here and there. Chikka Devaraja, the Mysore ruler, in the last quarter of the 17th-centry, had formed an alliance with the Mughals. He was able to fairly successfully resist the Marathas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Marathas have for a 130 years been topic of boosterism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about it? The article appears to be sourced exclusively to vernacular sources, probably not historians. AfD is a possibility but will require a lot of convincing! You could prod it and we can see if it lasts seven days?--RegentsPark (comment) 17:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Just saw this. What is prod? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROD. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @TrangaBellam:. I see. It sounds too complicated, i.e. beyond my limited mental capacity. So, maybe we can live and let live by ignoring the page and hoping that without attention it will wither away. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Action on Gaurav Arya

I was looking to contribute to the page Gaurav Arya, seems to be lot of action on creation and deletion. What is the take finally? I can create it again with relevant content and citations. Amitized (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amitized: From what I can figure out, the page was deleted per this discussion. If you want to recreate it, you'll need to make sure that the content is substantially different and that the new version satisfies the notability criterion. If you like, I can restore the deleted version in your user space so that you can work on making it substantially different (and that it satisfies the notability criterion) before you move it to article space. Let me know. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I dug a bit deeper and, frankly, I don't think there is enough notability so this is unlikely to survive. Still, perhaps you know more so it's your call. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Though this guy is a regular in the media, it seems lack of coverage is due to unsaid media policy of not covering media personnel of rivals. Will let you know once I do thorough work up on this. Amitized (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amitized he is not a notable media person. Every guy on news channels and every one who appears in Cinemas cannot have a wikipedia article. Please check the rules at WP:NJOURNALIST Venkat TL (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont think so, user Praxidicae has their profile page full of BLM dead people with sub zero notability. Gaurav Arya is still a respected defence analyst. Amitized (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Look, I dont know who that user is or why he has added dead people, or the meaning of BLM. They have no relation to Gaurav Arya or his article, so all that looks off topic to me. Please review WP:DELETION policy and follow the steps. Unless you can establish notability, the article cannot be created. Out of curiosity, did something happen since the article was last discussed and deleted? Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hijacking

What's up at Waliur Rahman (fellow)? I cannot make sense of the multiple moves and an ongoing AfD but it appears that the article was hijacked for someone eponymous by an editor, borderline incompetent. Will appreciate another pair of eyes. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What's with the "fellow"? Should I move it to Waliur Rahman (politician) and protect it if there is subsequent disruption? --RegentsPark (comment) 17:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that will be great.

Also, can you go through Abu Torab? The lead lodges some exceptional claims (is best known as the leader of Bengal's first rebellion against the British East India Company [...] and is regarded as a hero in the history of Bengal) but I cannot find any reliable source in English or Dutch that speaks of the subject, even trivially, except this (p. 245) single line. (One Abu Torab, Fauzdar of "Chakla Bhushna", is mentioned in some sources but they are not identical; the Fauzdar Torab was killed by a Sitaram in around 1714.) TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Abd fwiw, these issues are longstanding. (cc:Bishonen) TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every first Indian hero to rebel against the British .....! Let's see how the AfD plays out. I'll also keep an eye on that particular user. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I think after my series of AfD noms play out, I will request for a Topic ban. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Page Block

BrownSugar57 for Makarand Paranjape. Continuing to restore BLP violations without any discussion at article-t/p or user-t/p. The article's history is intriguing and ECPing might be a good idea. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Deterioration of my work in a selective manner

Hi, RegentsPark, as you are interested and involved for long time in south asia related topics. Some new users are deteriorating the articles related to Koeri caste with their own user generated image with serious technical issues. Can you please protect the page. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you kindly clarify what you mean by “my” work. Editors do not own articles. If you disagree with edits, then you can discuss it on the talk page. RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Following each of my edits and engaging me on different platforms is WP: Harassment. Please, refrain from it. RuudVanClerkHeba Aisha (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

As per WP: Harassment, the logs exist for us to track contributions and have a form of oversight. Please refer to the bottom of the article you linked me. This is the second occasion you have incorrectly cited Wikipedia policy at me. RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Heba Aisha:, RuudVanClerk is right in saying that you can't talk about the article as if it is only your work. Regardless, I see that there is a lot of reverting going on and have protected the article for a week. I suggest that the both of you, plus other editors (@LukeEmily:) work out a consensus on the talk page or seek some sort of WP:DR. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, would try to make consensus with fellow editors.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help. Heba Aisha, I quickly went through the text additions by RuudVanClerk and they look well sourced. Since none of the articles are owned by anyone, as long as the content is reliably sourced and relevant, it should be OK for anyone to add it to the article as RuudVanClerk has done. Requesting both editors to discuss content on talk page and get a mutual agreement rather than edit war. The issue is that with edit warring the article gets locked and even non-controversial edits cannot be made easily without involving admins. About images, we can discuss directly on the talk page of the article.LukeEmily (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Commented on the article talkpage. (TL;DR)  Don't think the image is appropriate for the article, though for reasons distinct from the ones stated so far. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Massive deletions at Eastern Ganga dynasty

Hi RegentsPark. Some massive deletion of content is going on at Eastern Ganga dynasty. Obviously some content is poorly sourced, but there is also properly sourced content (for example a map I added sourced from Schwartzberg, Joseph E.) which is being indiscriminately deleted. Also, the contributor is probably sock-pupetting (User:Sangramz and User:RamiDeva). Is there a way the article could be protected and the contributor dealt with? Best regards पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by New account

Hello RegentsPark - a new user account Abhigyaaningle is causing disruption on various pages, with removing citation and altering the quotes within the citation template. Also, this user caused disruption as IP before with similar edits. Like here Abhigyaaningle added this unsourced edit [10] which is exact same edit added by IP 59.88.74.200 [11]. You can also see how this user altered the quotes within the citation templates [12]. Please take action against this user for causing such disruptions on pages. Doesn't seem like he is here to improve encylopedia. One more thing I noticed, the other IP this user could have used or atleast associated with are IP 117.*.*.* which was temporarily blocked. Here is Abhigyaaningle requesting edit on semi protected page [13] and here is same request by 117.206.165.239 [14] MehmoodS (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've dropped a sanctions notification on their talk page. Let's see. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark He is at it again. This time not only he altered the numbers but also removed existing citations. [15] MehmoodS (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, after a week block, user Abhigyaaningle is at it again. Other editors have also noticed his disruptions and he has been warned again [16] by Toddy1. Its quite evident now that the editor isn't sincere about constructive editing. MehmoodS (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Egypt–Mesopotamia relations

Hi RegentPark! Would it be possible to have some temporary protection on this article? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)