User talk:Jethwarp/Archive 2

Gymnosophists, Calanus of India, Death of Alexander the Great
Hello, I was closely following your recent edits to Gymnosophists, Calanus of India and Death of Alexander the Great. It is good that you have taken an interest in these articles which hadn't received a lot of attention. However, knowingly or unknowingly, your edits have gradually downplayed the Jain side of things while at the same time, gradually increasing the Hindu POV. In the article Gymnosophists, I see the following issues

1. You have mentioned The gymnosophists, the Greeks encountered in 3rd Century B.C. at Taxila, an ancient center of Vedic learning, were probably an old sect of Hindu Naga sadhus, without providing any references.

2. You then go on to describe the Naga sadhus as ''The Nagas or Naga Sadhus (Naked Saints), are often called Indian gymnosophists. They are mostly worshippers of Shiva and carry Trishula, swords and even other weapons. They were known for taking arms for defending faith. They have the right to lead the procession at Kumbh Melas. They own several akharas and their movements were also of concern to British, who always kept a watchful eyes on them''. I feel there are 2 problems here- firstly, it hasn't been concretely established that they were indeed naga sadhus. Secondly, this isn't an article on the naga sadhus in the first place.

3. The line One such gymnosophist, was Calanus, who later self-immolated himslef, among chanting of vedic mantras,a Hindu rite. is again without citations.

In Calanus of India, you have completely removed the word Jain from the article, which I don't think is fair, given that it hasn't been conclusively established either way. So your mentioning of Calanus as a Hindu fakir in Death of Alexander the Great is also problematic.

Though I feel the earlier text in all of these articles was neutral and did not favor any side, I have not reverted your edits as I wanted to discuss this with you first.--Aayush18 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have not probably read the links :-

1. Please go to link provided in citation - And  - both read page page 49. this mentions what I have written. I have just pointed out that there is an opinion that they were probably an old sect of Naga Sadhus.

2. Go to search page and you can often find references of Naga Sadhus alongwith Jain monks are commonly called gymnsophist  see-. I can give you many more reference. This also is not an article of Jain Digambara. Please do not push me in this - gynosophists of India can be either Naga Sadhus or Jain Digambara. They were more likely to be Naga Sadhus because of their taking part in revolt. Ten of them were arrested for doing so. Jain Munis do not take up arms and preach or adhere to violence so it is likely they were Naga Sadhus. Because in Hindus also only Naga Sadhus have ancient tradition of keeping arms and taking part in wars.

3. The old revision of Calanus was totally unrefereenced. without citation. Did not even mention that he prophesied Alexnader's death. Self-immolation is an practice among Hindus and not Jains. If there are incidence of self-immolation in Jain, please let me know. Instead of appreciating me for improving the old version, I see you are disturbed that word about word Jain. The earlier version was also without any reference and tagged so since many months. if you were following the articles, why did not you add the facts about self-immolation of Calanus and his prophecy of Alexander's death.

4. Please do not remove the text I have added, however, you are free to add any information, with proper citation from reliable third party sources.

5. It would be prudent to discuss this things on article talk page and not my page. So that other editors can participate. So in future, please put forward your opinions of article talk page.

Jethwarp (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your efforts, I really do. I started off this discussion by praising your efforts. And I'm not trying to push you or anything lol, and yeah I'll continue this on the respective articles' talk pages.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Aayush18, that was a nice reply. I have also followed you up on respective talk page. I try to work with Neutral POV and AGF policy. I have written what I could find from sources. Further, since you are following Jain articles. Maybe you can add further info or photos of beautiful Bhadreshwar Jain temples to the article I created - Bhadreswar, Kutch - which is related to your sphere of interest. Jethwarp (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

KGK page
Hi

I have left a note on the KGK page as I noticed it has grown bigger again instead of smaller.

Something has to be done, as it is a year since I first talked with you about the page size.

It needs to be made smaller by removing sections to new pages. It simply cannot be left as it is. If it is true that a bridge is notable, then the material will not be deleted. If it is not notable then it may be deleted.

Wikipedia relies on rules of notability, if it is not notable it does not get published. I would love to be able to have everything in here, but that is not possible. If you want to start your own website on the history of the KGK, I am sure it would get a link from the KGK page - but listing every building, every road, every bridge, every family group in every town is not going to be possible here.

I will give you two weeks to do something about this, then I will start to chop it up myself. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello!! Chaosdruid. Although, I have not done any major additions or edit to page since long. However, I just went thorough the article and have removed some major section and lines, which I felt were not reqd. I may go on vacation very soon so may not be able to contribute to Wikipedia for at least 15 days. Jethwarp (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making a start. I hope you can understand why I am asking for these changes, if not, perhaps these will help: Readability, Size guide and Size issues
 * In particular note: "Articles of about 200 KB (~30 pages) are not uncommon for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles."
 * At the moment the page is 14,000+ words and 300kb.
 * I know there is a risk of things getting deleted, but if that starts to happen you can save them to your sandbox, or off-wiki into a word document, then nothing is lost. In fact I would recommedn that you save a copy of articles off-wiki, I keep them in a directory for a few months until I know things are stable or a deletions discussion is finished. Most importantly, do not forget the the article is always fully recoverable from it's history - you can click on any day and time, view the page as it was then, click edit and copy and paste it into anywhere you like!
 * Have a good holiday - I will be away from the 4th April for a week, but not for pleasure :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jagdu Shah
Thank you for creating the article on Jagdu Shah with a lot of references. There are some Sanskrit texts mentioning his life, and he is also mentioned in the context of the earliest Muslim buildings in India. I will try to locate and add them.Malaiya (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hindu Ranghars
I haven't seen any current reference in the People of India Series on Hindu Ranghars. As Ibbetson said in the late 19th Century, in his summary to the 1881 Census of India, that any Hindu Rajput who converts to Islam is known as a Ranghar, although the term is seen as offending by them. However, if there is current evidence of subsisting Hindu Ranghars, then I am happy to include them in this article.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ajanbahu Jatbasha


The article Ajanbahu Jatbasha has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I can find just one source for this person, although it is republished several times. That source admits to being "conjecture" and is a British Raj Gazetteer from 1907. Those Gazetteers are unreliable, relied often on unquestioned acceptance of folklore (in the manner of James Tod & are rarely used by modern academics, therefore this article fails WP:GNG - lack of multiple independent reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and citing
I have spotted a whole new raft of problems with your recently created articles, to match those found some time ago at Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya. Please could you take some time to revisit WP:RS and WP:CITEKILL. Quite a few of the articles could well end up being deleted, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Sitush, I try my level best to follow Wiki guidelines to my knowledge. Have added few lines in Ajanbahu Jatsaba article citing sources I found, I hope they are okay. Thanks.Jethwarp (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP article titles
Hi

Long time no speak! Hope all is well with you after your operation and that you have recovered fully :¬)

I am glad to see that you are still hard at it, in particular I know things were difficult when we first communicated over the KGK article(s), but I hope you can see why I was so concerned and tried to steer you in a "smaller articles" direction. If you did not manage to save any of the material, do not forget that I have a copy of the railways article, as I believe you do, and you can always copy anything out of the history if you need to save anything onto your computer in word or text files.

Anyway, to today's request - can you point me to the guideline, policy, or discussion, that you used when you say "It is not proper to write birth-death year in title, so moved page to new title defining his profession"?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - have you seen this page: WP:QUALIFIER - Here it says: "Other examples where more creative disambiguation is required include the following:
 * Roger Meddows-Taylor and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer) (two drummers called Roger Taylor)
 * Jessica Collins (actress born 1971) and Jessica Collins (actress born 1983) (two actresses called Jessica Collins)"

This clearly illustrates that dates of birth can be used in article titles. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi!! Chaosdruid - well long time.

Anyway coming back to the point, well in case of John Chambers - there were no two persons with same nationality, profession so mentioning dob was not needed in article title.

I think you are in knowledge ''"The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being. Some of these are standard, commonly used tags, such as "(musician)" and "(politician)". Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (apart from where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions to that), and also try to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable word. Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it) although this may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and tag, such as Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977)." So generally you don't use the dob or dod unless there are multiple people of same name, same occupation and perhaps same nationality.''

Even then if you think I have not followed the policy, you are free to revert it. Jethwarp (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not what has been done, it is your edit summary where you say "It is not proper to write birth-death year in title"
 * That statement is incorrect. It is that simple, and you have used the same edit summary on other pages as well.
 * I also know that you are only copying what was written to me on Tassedethe's page, and I do not believe you knew where to find that particular policy.
 * The edit summary should be an accurate record of the changes you have made. Where policy is atated as the edit summary, it needs to be accurate. I questioned your reasons for moving the page only because of what you put in the summary. If you had written "This is the only Chambers page and does not need db" I would not have been having this dialogue with you.
 * More importantly, if you had understood policy and guidelines, you would have known that it was done as a standard method of db between two persons of exactly the same name. The original method was "Person (b. 19XX)", and was changed to "Person (Job born 19XX)" at the end of 2008/09.


 * In conclusion, if you had known about this before you moved the page, you would have realised that no disambiguator is necessary at all as there is no other John Chambers article. You should have moved it to "John Chambers", not "John Chambers (disambiguator)"
 * I decided to let the name stand as it was, even though it had ? in it, after spending some time on the article as I had put it up for DYK. I would have adressed the issue after the DYK had gone through, or if it was brought up at DYK.
 * I hope you moving it has not affected the DYK nomination, it would be extremely disappointing if something goes wrong.


 * Don't forget that if someone searches for "Fred Smith" and the article title is "Fred Smith (b.1900)", they will still be taken to that page, or a db page titled "Fred Smith" or another Fred Smith article that they can click on the db link at the top of the page "For Fred Smith the person who did something b. 1900, see (Linked page)". Try not to take things too literally, there is no harm in many of the things you are concerned with, such as red links. There are so many other jobs that actually need doing, these are really small things that are of little consequence in the big picture. If you want something to look at, why not start looking at categories of India pages, such as ones with issues that need fixing?
 * Try some of these:
 * WikiProject India/Requested articles - India articles that need to be made
 * WikiProject_India/to_do - Jobs the India project needs worked on
 * Category:India_articles_needing_attention


 * I don't know which dialects you can speak, but there are Category:Articles needing translation from Bengali Wikipedia, Category:Articles needing translation from Hindi Wikipedia and Category:Articles needing translation from Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia


 * So much to do, you will never be bored :¬) 05:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya
We still seem to have enormous problems at Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya. I realise that you have been attempting some improvements but, honestly, they mostly are not. For example, the "states series" of works by the Anthropological Survey of India is not reliable (the "national series" is), and it seems that you still have not got to grips with some of the basics, eg: WP:CITEKILL. I'll be returning to the article in the next few days and will be stripping it back: the problems have gone on for long enough now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I understand your concerns. It was just by chance I got online book reference stating Mestri is also another name of Mistri. So just decided to add the reference, as when we had last talked on subject, I thought that works by Kumar Suresh Singh and Anthropological Survey of India, fall within Reliable Source. As you are aware other books on community are available in Gujarati, some are even out of print and none available online. Otherwise, you must have seen, I have also shortened the article in last several edits.

In any case, you are much experienced than me with respect to Wiki guidelines and policies and can do whatever pruning you like to do.

Regards and Good Night. Jethwarp (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lohana people
Category:Lohana people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)