User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 37

Descendants of Maurya
The reason you removed this byte? Amansinghmurao (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not WP:RS. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Would a government site be ok to source? Amansinghmurao (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, no. You need to find academic sources.--RegentsPark (comment) 01:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you the founder of Wikipedia? Amansinghmurao (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Please do take some time to read Wikipedia's policies.--RegentsPark (comment) 01:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

महोना
अब इससे क्या दिक्कत है , ये तो peoples of India : Lucknow Gagetteers का रिफ्रेंस था ,

महोना के मुराव जमींदार, इसे क्यों हटाया?? Amansinghmurao (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

New comment
Hello again. Further to our earlier conversation, I would like to share my latest exchange of messages with the other Wikipedia editor I am in touch with and on whose talk page you also posted a message. I am not sure what is allowed to be deleted and what is not, so I posted the list of errors in the existing article in the Talk page + the proposed draft (my sandbox draft) + the list of things I am retaining from the existing article in the proposed draft + some questions/suggestions to improve the article further.

''@Anderson1970 Do not remove anything if it is sourced. Regarding the name confusion, just describe that who called/planned which name. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

''@RegentsPark and @Saha  Hello. As I am new and a bit confused, I modified the article's talk page instead and pasted the sandbox draft there. I listed the mistakes in the old article and suggested why there should be a new article, though I did retain a few things from the old article. Can you please take a look at the talk page? If you like it, then I can paste it and you can then delete the sandbox draft. Also, if you like the revised style I can post new historical articles on colonial topics like this. Let me know. Thank you. '' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengal_Club

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Bengal_Club '' Anderson1970 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You should probably directly edit the Bengal Club article. But, rather than pasting everything, work incrementally., as far as I can see, is knowledgable about both Kolkata as well as Wikipedia policies so probably best to follow their advice! --RegentsPark (comment) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to do so, but can someone then please remove the sandbox draft page from the review queue? The draft is in a waiting list and I do not want to confuse the reviewer, who may think there is no such page on Wikipedia and is unaware something already exists. I don't need the sandbox draft page anymore, as I have saved the text and footnotes. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Bengal_Club

Anderson1970 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cleaned out all the AfC stuff for you. Hopefully that's all that was necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Debnath
Hello RegentsPark.. the article on Debnath has become a subject of persistent vandalism (addition of unsourced POV / caste glorification). JellyMan9001 had warned the user (Ayush Bhatacharjee) and you had informed them about the discretionary sanctions for similar edits. I had requested for page protection at WP:RPP, I have no clue why they declined mentioning the user has not been properly informed. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily extended protected the page while I figure things out. Are these editors socks or meats?, , ? They seem to be removing more or less the same content. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems so! All of them have the same agenda! Thank you. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've extended it to one year. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great move indeed considering persistent sock puppetry! Thanks, again. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Scott Sumner article
Hello, RegentsPark. I was wondering if you could place the article about economist Scott Sumner with extended semi-protection. There is a numeric user who is adding summaries of entries from Sumner's blog to his article claiming Sumner is a member of the Democratic Party and is supportive of the Chinese Communist Party when the references linked do not indicate that that is true. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected it for 3 months. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Shivaji
(Moving to Talk:Shivaji. please discuss content issues on article talk pages rather than spreading them out on user talk pages. Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC))

You reverted my edits on page Shivaji. The changes I had made were based on the given source. The source just mentions that things changed in the decade of 1977-86 and does not explicitly or implicitly state that the Shivaji was responsible for the change. Please read the source carefully before reverting any edits. I have reverted your reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatill (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverts
Going through your contribution history, seems like you are having great pleasure in reverting other's edits rather than correcting or improving it. Cool down a little and help them instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruelcurse (talk • contribs) 06:00, October 29, 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I had a lot more time when I first joined Wikipedia but, unfortunately, real life keeps me busy these days and leaves no time for a deep dive into articles. Hopefully, some day in the future. In the meantime, at least I get the opportunity to help build this encyclopedia by reverting poorly sourced material (I assume that's what you added and I reverted). --RegentsPark (comment) 12:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sudra Kingdom
Every five years, this page gets moved because some people don't like the "Sudra" name (which actually has nothing to do with varnas). I've reverted the move whenever it happened. It's very likely that a sock of an account I blocked in the past is doing the same moves now, but it's so stale, can't do a check. The first time it was moved (both Dab and I had looked through the original Mbh verse to check out the spelling, it's a mythological kingdom referred in Mbh only) Please keep a watch on this and take any admin action as necessary. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted., are likely socks of .--RegentsPark (comment) 12:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the socks and meatpuppets are causing havoc all over. I just came across another OR article with random google books snippets -- Abhira dynasty. The account that blocked is not the original, that's a sock, I just can't remember the farm name, just remember that  and I blocked a lot of them (including a couple that were blocked by  for DE). Anyway, I currently got sucked in on the non-admin side of things with the new socks, I can't take action now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also . I did a search on "Ahir" at SPI and found socks going back 10+ years. It looks like there is some overlap with Yadav for which there are even more socks. I don't have the time but an SPI on these three editors may give us something. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Darganata
Can you move Darganata, Turkmenistan to Darganata? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Rollback request
Sir, I made a rollback rights request 5 days ago on WP:PERM but I didn't get any response. Also I submitted this issue on WP:AN but not response yet. Could you please help me to sort this out.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't usually handle permissions so you're going to have to ask someone else. Did you try the admins who regularly grant rollback permissions? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes sir, I asked DreamJass but DreamJass stated me the reason that there has been a backlog going on so he can't dealt with my request. Jyoti Roy (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look. Yes, there is a backlog. Usually, blacklogs end up getting cleared sooner or later so just hang on for a bit. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok sir, I will wait for some days more. Jyoti Roy (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about Lancepark
Hello User:RegentsPark, Please have a look at the edit history of User:Lancepark he is continuously involved in ‘bad faith’ editing and removing sourced material about the history of Jeypore from various Wikipedia articles. It seems that he is also not aware of the WP rules regarding the use of colonial era sources. It’s a kind request to have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.152.193 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can do here but perhaps you can make your concerns known on the article talk page? (Also, since they are mentioned here). Do you also edit as ? If yes, note that editing logged out is discouraged. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I am not sure what this is about either. I edit a lot of articles of different kinds, so I don't really understand what the complaint is about (perhaps some problem with my edits?). If there are genuine issues with my edits and citations, then please by all means rectify them. Also I just checked my User talk page, the same anonymous ID had commented on the page (abuses/profanities it seems, must be due to some edit I made related to that subject which seems to be an issue again) on 28 September. but I chose to ignore it as a stray comment. Apologies for any trouble and have a good day. Lancepark (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please check the edit history in Kalinga (historical region article where Lancepark mischievously removed the sourced sources of Jeypore, its name and replaced it by an unsourced claim. Some edits were also made in Kingdom of Jeypore article where Lancepark removed the previous sources and removed them with legal cases and old colonial era sources and made a redirect to Jeypore Estate. Can he explain why he removed the previous sources? Many articles and books have mentioned Jeypore as a princely state at a later stage. When there is debate between its estate and state status then why did Lancepark change the title from ‘Kingdom of Jeypore’ to ‘Jeypore Estate’? This is bad faith editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.152.193 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

About community sanction notification
Is message sent randomly or selected based on any criteria because I am editing south asia related pages since more than a year with good editing record. Why I am given this message now ? Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder. I noticed you're reverting a couple of times on the list of rajput kings article, an article that was recently extended protected by me. It doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Although the first time I reverted, I asked the person for discussion and he despite being online and editing other pages, didn't join the discussion hence reverted it after three days. This time I am doing the same, asked LukeEmily to discuss it first before removing such major chunk of the article. If you think its not correct way, I can revert my edit and will discuss the matter beforehand but I believe, the discussion should be taken before such major changes. Thanks for the reply by the way Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing under propoganda
Hi sir this person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RS6784 is always editing Wikipedia for his Pro-Rajput caste and Anti-Gurjar / Anti-Ahir propoganda. Please see his edits. 2401:4900:5044:DE12:A487:6B00:46D4:795D (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Two new articles on old Calcutta
Hello. I would like to share with you two new articles I wrote based on historical research. I would be thankful for your comments and suggestions.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Swimming_Club

This is actually a rewrite of an old article: the old article was too short, had no photos, no historical info, no reliable citations, had various errors. I also informed the user Arnab Saha and he is kindly helping with a fair use licence for two movie screenshots.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_versus_Calcutta,_1880

This is a new article I created from scratch.

Thank you.

Anderson1970 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
... and, btw, it's Der fliegende Holländer now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Wikipedia does change after all :) --RegentsPark (comment) 01:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ganges reference to Dante's Divine Comedy
Hello @RegentsPark,

Thank you for your help about cleaning and maintaining the Ganges article - I am not very sure why you reverted my edit though - would really like to add this information and references to Dante's Divine Comedy to the article on Ganges - Could you please advice on how best we could do that ? Karthik Sripal (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted because the material was not sourced to a reliable secondary source. You should find such sources before re-adding the material. As written, it looked like WP:OR.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Am sorry @RegentsPark I was actually citing the original source of the book - Purgatorio, Canto XXVII, lines 1–6, Mandelbaum translation - Do I need to find a secondary source even if I have the original source cited ? Can you please advice ? Karthik Sripal (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. You need to find a secondary source. primary sources should not be directly used. If Dante's Divine Comedy referenced the Ganges, there will definitely be secondary sources that give that reference a context and you should use those. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty - Thank you! Karthik Sripal (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep a watch
Criticism of Sikhism was a mess and I will like you to keep a watch on the article. Attracts a variety of agenda-driven editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I notified the two editors about the ipa sanctions. Watching as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you kindly take a look at this user? There is nothing remotely constructive apart from using WP like a forum. I warned him a month ago and his very next edit is this. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not going anywhere. Citing sources in a cavalier manner from GSnippets, outright evasive replies and sealioning, refusing to stop pinging, not considering paywalled sources etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is blatant trolling.
 * Kept posting for days (incl. today) that they had nothing against the removal of other sections and wished the article to include a single section. Now, they are opposing my edits (which are agreed to by others) and speaking about how consensus can change. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Kept posting for days (incl. today) that they had nothing against the removal of other sections and wished the article to include a single section. Now, they are opposing my edits (which are agreed to by others) and speaking about how consensus can change. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regent Parks, Tranga has made numerous bad faith edits at the talk page. Firstly he removed 8000 bytes of information while consenus wasn't made. not even a day after the page came out of fully protected. He did this before too, (5+ edits removing 90% of the article) while talk page discussions were going on He refuses to take a look at how other articles such as "Criticism of Islam" and "Criticism of Christianity" are written, which follow the same way as I've proposed to update the bibliolatry section of the article. which shows numerous commentary from various hindu philosophers, 20th century and even a 13th century jewish rabbis and professors of christanity and judaism, and muslim scholars. Similarily, I've included numerous sources from University of Oxford, University of Manchester, and Yale University professors. He refuses to allow them to be mentioned in the article and gives no explanation whatsoever, he first accused them of being nobodys and when he was proven wrong, he pivoted and claimed that they cant be used because their knowledge of the religion cant be proven. He's compared oxford and yale university professors to flat earth fringe blogs. He then gives me a quote on that James Pratt and linked a preview hidden behind a hefty paywall (preview had no mention of quote) (how I am supposed to verify???). He claims that I'm using hb snippets which is untrue (I've included numerous quotations in my citations), while he's doing this. He's also refused to explain things when I've asked him to specify numerous times. He wants to remove the W.H McLeod for no reason as well, his removal wasn't discussed at all on the talk page. He also attempted to censor a quote from Saraswati on the basis of WP:Fork although the article he mentioned [Hinduism and Sikhism] had no mention of Arya Samaj or Saraswati in the first place. He also has falsely claimed WP:Due without even properly reading what the guidline entailed. He's trying his absolute hardest to censor information, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia runs on sources and not feelings. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He wants to remove the W.H McLeod for no reason as well, his removal wasn't discussed at all on the talk page.: A cursory Ctrl+F at the t/p shows me writing (48 hrs. back), Since you are harping on about removal of 90% content, maybe explain how McLeod is criticizing Sikhism when he applies (a) higher criticism to Sikh texts or (b) critiques Singh Sabha scholars? Except in that they were perceived as "criticism of Sikhism" by a group of influential conservative Sikhs, whose details you are so keen to remove.
 * There is no reply from you and a note of support from MehmoodS. Stop making up stuff. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reply from you and a note of support from MehmoodS. Stop making up stuff. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Tranga wants to remove 90% the entire article, he even said he wanted to change the name of the article, and only leave up the "academia" section of the article which is merely about the lives of random academics, while leaving everything about theology, scriptures and practices out. This is the only article based on the criticism of a religion that would ignore everything and just focus on the lives/inclinations of academics and he objects to any academic's commentary on practices, theology on the basis that they dont know enough about the faith even if they're professors of comparative religion at yale university Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Tranga, discuss this on the talk page, not on someone user's page please. I've replied to you there Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . It seems to me that you're now edit warring against two editors. While that doesn't mean you're wrong, the onus is on you to seek consensus for what you want to add to the article. You should seek dispute resolution, perhaps through WP:DRN. An RfC is also a possibility but there seems to be a lot of material under contention and you may need to work your way through step by step. Regardless, continuing to edit war is going to result in blocks or bans and that's not something you want. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but does edit warring count when it's a discussion on a talk page and not the actual article itself? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the article (you've reverted twice now and that doesn't include reverts before the article was protected by ). On the talk page, you need to be careful that you don't get into an endless discussion. Better to seek WP:DR because excessively bringing up the same points again and again is considered disruptive. (Also, indent your posts!) --RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comments about me on AE
Yes, and I was around on this planet for a long time too before autism was diagnosed, over 50 years infact, and I have learnt very well to mask it. My edit history on Wikipedia is not to subject areas in which 1RR is in place, so how should I have learnt about it through my edit history. There had been discretionary sanctions on Somalia at one time, but they have not been in place since I started editing the subject area. Amirah  talk  23:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I've upset you in any way. Regardless, like I said, you don't need a topic ban but a 1RR violation does need some response. Imo. Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Amirah   talk  00:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please publish the page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhupendra_Chandra_Datta_Bhowmik. It was removed to draft section by a currently blocked user. Bhowmik was a famous journalist from Tripura as well as India. Please publish it. Wikifulness (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

K. P. Poornachandra Tejaswi
Hi, I just without consensus moved Poornachandra Tejaswi to K. P. Poornachandra Tejaswi, I want you to undo it. I moved it as a preventive measure against any novice editor doing so; and since the Kannada Wikipedia community is virtually non existent, at least on English Wikipedia, the move would be go unnoticed for a long time.

I assumed from my little experience that if you perform a move and undo it, it will take only a consensus to redo it again. But now I discovered that I am not being to undo it. I am posting this message on different seasoned editors I know, so don't be surprised if somebody else it before you. Thanks Appu (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim
Hi User:RegentsPark, You reverted edits to the article on William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim suggesting the edits had "subtracted sourced detail". The detail was sourced but irrelevant to the subject. While worthy of inclusion elsewhere, the material was not relevant to Slim. On a difficult issue like unsubstantiated allegations against a long-dead person, statements should be tightly about the subject. As edited, the article still contains clear statements of the allegations. No detail, relevant to Slim, was removed. What was removed were statements on the issue by a politician and statements about another party (the Fairbridge Farm School), not Slim. One of those statements was a journalist's "estimate" about the Fairbridge Farm School, not Slim. The statement "According to one estimate by a former pupil and journalist, David Hill, some 60 percent of children who went to Fairbridge were abused" says nothing about Slim but its inclusion used association and juxtaposition to suggest a connection. What was represented as a "recount" by an accuser was more appropriately identified as a "claims" but the quote was retained in full as relevant. I hope my edits provided balance. Regards,115.42.1.55 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. You should make your case on the article talk page rather than in edit summaries when you're removing content or adding new content that could be considered controversial. I have no quibble with your edits but the odds are that someone else will revert you sooner or later if you don't state your reasons on the talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021 for the Jihad article
I made a semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021 for the Jihad article but you have not replied to what I asked last. I don't know if Wikipedia failed to ping you or if I was unable to do the same correctly or if you have been busy. Please reply there. Thanks! 27.7.114.129 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Question
That satyapal007 person has been vandalizing pages of amer, dhundhar repeatedly. You haven't issued him a warning... My edits have been backed by reliable sources, I have used books authored by distinguished historians & history researchers. That guy is spreading information related to rajputs only, isn't that identifiable as a sanction, as far as I know, it is, you are a distinguished & respected member of the community, I sincerely apologize if my actions have annoyed you but you are ignoring that other guy's actions, he edits without footnoting & uses travel blogs as his sources, I have a suggestion that the pages must get protected status and restored to their original form. Thank you

I would just like to state that I would certainly diversify my interest areas as per your suggestion..Hope we have sorted this out- Lord Elzai Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year in advance man!
 * I'll take a look. I do see that they're adding Jadunath Sarkar as a source and sort of recollect that there are issues with using Sarkar. But, will need to do some digging to figure this out. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps can say more about Sarkar. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of edits in the Amber Fort page and in the edit summary gave the reasons for disregarding Sarkar for the pre-Mughal material per J. D. Smith's review here. I note too that the UNESCO WHS citation states, "Amber Palace is representative of a key phase (17th century) in the development of a common Rajput-Mughal court style, embodied in the buildings and gardens added to Amber by Mirza Raja Jai Singh I." (here).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I had a feeling that Sarkar was not acceptable and now recall that there was some discussion when the Showbiz sock first showed up on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should ask to take a look as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather conveniently, a new editor has popped in to replace Sarkar with a different source. The timing is interesting. .--RegentsPark (comment) 21:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't remember a specific discussion about Sarkar, but I know that using him as a source on Rajputs was a big no-no given that Showbiz tended to use him to POV-push Rajput ideas, and seeing that review that User:Fowler&fowler brought up is especially damning. That source took over forty years to publish due to Rajput lobbyists and the fact that it means the source actually dates to 1940 and thus falls flat under WP:RAJ, Sarkar is to be discarded. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! --RegentsPark (comment) 14:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ahmadiilyas
Hi RegentsPark! We have a problem with this user:. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I dropped a DS notice on their talk page. But, I don't think that's going to work. Let's see. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.
Sir need your help. S Das0406 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Sri Aurobindo
It is with regard to Sri Aurobindo. A crucial identity of him is missing. He was born in a Bengali Kayastha family. This fact is missing from his article. LALAJI1234 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Will you kindly add this information in his article?LALAJI1234 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You should ask on the article talk page. I think you'll also need to explain why it is important, why the source is reliable, etc. but I know little about Indian castes so better to seek consensus on the article talk page. Best wishes (and happy holidays!). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Have written in the talk page about it but no response as of yet. LALAJI1234 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps no one thinks this is important. I suggest moving on to something else, not everything needs to be on Wikipedia. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Hi, picked you at random from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. There may be a simple way for me to get what I want without bothering you but if so I don't know what it is.

So, I want to look at the complete history of Better source needed and it's documentation and talk pages, back to its creation, for historical background for a discussion. The history of that page begins on 12 August 2011‎, with "moved Template:Better source to Template:Primary source-inline over redirect". There's history before that but I'm not sure how to access it -- I think this would require access to some deleted material? (If not, sorry to bother you, could you advise me on how to get to that previous history? Thanks.)

(The page now named Template:Better source itself is a redirect, and was changed in 2020 and I don't know how to access the history of that page before then, either, if that would do the trick).

The doc page Template:Better source needed/doc similarly goes back only to 2011, and I'd like to see that page from the beginning also. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that all the history is already pretty much there. Better source was moved to Template:Primary source inline and that's where the early history is (the two deleted versions are both redirects). Better Source needed originally contained a redirect to Better Source, the redirect was deleted and the current version created. That's what I've been able to figure out! --RegentsPark (comment) 20:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you! Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Caste promotion
Hi RegentsPark, since I gather you're an expert in this area, might I ask you to look at the editing career of, in particular these four edits from today which appear to be Jat-pushing:   , and finally this one which looks suspiciously like source falsification, though I don't have access to the source to check and it's from 1935 so probably a load of cobblers. They were left a DS alert for India/Pakistan earlier in the month, if that helps. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Since all they want to do is to scatter a few Jat's around, I've "not here" blocked them. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and Happy New Year! Wham2001 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuous IP vandalism
Hi, can you take a look on Bhoi dynasty & Ramachandra Deva I pages? Certain IP vandals are continuously messing them. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look too bad. I've protected Bhoi Dynasty for a couple of weeks. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era
Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Thanks and happy new year to you too! Did I miss the entire Triassic era? --RegentsPark (comment) 17:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, RegentsPark!


Happy New Year! RegentsPark, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Happy New Year to you too! Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

About the complaints u received.
Sir I got a notice about my discussion on some talk page. But no where I gave any type of legal threats to any editor. But yes I do raised my voice against some editors who I think misused there editorial power while creating some Wikipedia page. Cast system in India is a very sensitive issue and there are some strict laws when you address them in public platform. I found some of their content offensive towards a group. But if I still believe I made a mistake then this time I will not request you not to take any action on my account. Any way though not so nice experience but still good. Here I rest my case. Thank you and happy New to you. S Das0406 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, RegentsPark!


Happy New Year! RegentsPark, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks. And best wishes for 2022 to you and your loved ones! --RegentsPark (comment) 14:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Kautilya3 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Best wishes for 2022 to you too! --RegentsPark (comment) 14:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

 * Thanks. I'm waiting eagerly by my snail mailbox! --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you look at indef pending changes protecting this page?
. Thank you Aleena98 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I indef pending pages protected it but, looking at the edit history, that won't solve all of your problem. Still, worth the shot. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help Aleena98 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * could you please take a look at this: IP keeps messing up this article & . Thanks Aleena98 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! And once again, thanks for all your help so far :) Aleena98 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . Happy 2022 to you as well! --RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Question
Hii Mr. Regent Park, You are continuosly editing the article of Mughal Saf. , Since i have given clearification that why we should have to add Jai Singh 1 because he was one of the most prominent general in that campaign, But even after knowing this you deleted his name many times , I want to know why you are doing this For more information regarding the safavid campaign and Jai Singh 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Singh_I Asr99.0979 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Go ahead and add Jai Singh if you think it necessary. I was removing the Mughal empire flag which is known to be a fake flag. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you have problem with flag then you only should have to remove flag instead of removing important and reliable things Asr99.0979 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already said "Apologies" above. But, you should read edit summaries. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I was primarily removing the flag and, hopefully, not just added it back again with an obviously incorrect "unexplained edit" summary. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

About recent changes on Charan page
Hi, Recently, most of the data on Charan page was removed. I have been learning to properly write and edit at Wikipedia following guidelines. But I have been adding to this page from half a year, small things at a time, and have always tried to provide proper sources. I would understand if my edits were corrected or removed based on proper reasons and it would be another opportunity for me to learn here at Wikipedia. But you have just removed anything and everything at once, which is not only disappointing but also confusing. Were all those sources Primary sources or was everything Original Research? I think it's really discouraging for new editors. Anyway, Isn't wikipedia built by contributors from all over the world? I was trying to contribute to this page which had barely anything. And now this page(Charan) has again been reverted to a deserted state. I hope you can take time to explain what specifically went wrong in that much info you reverted. Thank you. Happy New Year. Krayon95 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the content I've removed is sourced to various mythological texts. Using those sorts of sources to construct a narrative is original research and is not allowed on wikipedia. If there are sections that are not WP:OR, feel free to add them back. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked and you probably can't edit the article (it is WP:ECP protected). You will need to suggest your edits on the article talk page instead. I also notified you of community sanctions on Indian social groups since, apparently, you haven't been notified before. Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying.

I see that the concern is about mythological texts. How else can I use them properly? I tried to add only the most significant sections from those epics. Aren't the Origin myths in Gita and the ones recorded by ethnographers necessary for the page. Again I tried to add as few mythological sources as possible because there are many mentions of the term Charan in the epic, which deal with supernatural feats and miracles, though that is expected in those epics. I added only the ones which made the most sense & were realistic. Krayon95 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:ECP? It says that a user need more than 500 edits. Do you know where I can check how many edits I've made in total, till now.

And Thanks a lot for this. Krayon95 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't use mythological texts because doing so requires interpretation and only scholarly peer-reviewed interpretations are allowed. My suggestion is that you look for reliable secondary sources that interpret these texts. You currently have 303 edits but that's not the point. If you continue to add original research, you'll end up topic banned or blocked. Better not to go there if you can help it! You could ask some veteran editors on caste topics ( are a few who you could ask) on how best to go about editing in this area. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi.

I hadn't mentioned directly in the article about the author of those interpretations of the epics, which I think may have contributed to them being reverted. The translation/interpretation sources that I used for Ramayana & Mahabharata were by either Kesari Mohan Ganguli or Bibek Debroy. Their works on these epics are considered the most authentic. For Mahabharata, Debroy uses the critical Sanskrit version published by BORI(Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute), even provides footnotes stating the reason or alternative understanding of the verses. While Ganguli's interpretation has been around for 100 years, Debroy's works on both Ramayana & Mahabharata are from this last decade. By this I mean to say that from my view, I tried to use the best available sources I could find on the topic.

I would also ask you to reconsider your decision to put WP:ECP on this page, not just because I am not yet WP: EC, but there hasn't even been any vandalism activity on this page. Not many seem even interested to vandalise this page, much less contribute to it. If my edits regrading mythology were not properly conforming, you or someone else could have highlighted the error, and I would've improved it. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take it off ECP if you can get one of the editors I've listed above to mentor you. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * in response to your message on my talk page, I would like to mention that more than 95% of the content you want to restore is not acceptable since we do not accept primary sources, Raj-era sources and random websites; therefore the same has been removed by a senior admin like RegentsPark. I don't find any reason to incorporate the remaining 5%, which may be added as per our policies but it's neither going to help the reader nor serve your purpose. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wishing you a very happy and prosperous New Year, RegentsPark! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you Ekdalian for taking the time to examine those edits and finding out the exact proportion of 'not acceptable content'. I am still not at that level where I can say that I understand all about Wikipedia editing. Now, these are the sources on which that content was based(I am sorry for the clutter):

1. [Economics and Patriliny Consumption and Authority within the Household by Rajni Palriwala 1993]

2. [Raj Marwar During British Paramountcy: A Study in Problems and Policies Up to 1923 Book by P. R. Shah 1982]

3. [Census of India, 1901, Volume 25, Part 1]

4. [Fertility Behaviour: Population and Society in a Rajasthan Village 2006]

5. [Transaction and Hierarchy Elements for a Theory of Caste By Harald Tambs-Lyche · 2017]

6. [Folk Theatre of Rajasthan: Introducing Three Marwari Khyal Plays Translated into English by Dr. Cecil Thomas Ault Jr. 2017]

7. [In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medieval Marwar (South Asia) 2008]

8. [The Ain i Akbari Volume 2 By Abū al-Faz̤l ibn Mubārak, Henry Sullivan Jarrett · 1993]

9. [The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback By Yashaswini Chandra · 2021]

10. [Nomadic Narratives A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert By Tanuja Kothiyal · 2016]

11. [Gazetteer Of The Bombay Presidency Vol-v by Cutch, Palanpur, And Mahi Kantha] 1880

12. [THE SONS OF A GODDESS]

13. [The reincarnation of the Charans - India: the children of Shiva]

14. [The Valmiki Ramayana Vol. 1 · Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2017](https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/orU8DwAAQBAJ?hl=en)

15. [IITK Valmiki Ramayana]

16. [Valmiki Ramayana by P.P.S. Sastri 1935]

17. [THE MAHABHARATA of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Complete 18 Parvas By Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa · 2014](https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/THE_MAHABHARATA_of_Krishna_Dwaipayana_Vy/anomAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0)

18. [Mahabharata Vol. 1 Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2010]

19. [Environmental Crisis and Social Dismemberment in Northwest India by GSL Devra 2012]

20. [The Imperial Gazetteer Of India (Volume Xxi) Pushkar To Salween] 1908

21. [Rajasthan District Gazetteers: Nagaur] 1975

22. [First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium With Minutes of Evidence and Appendices · Volume 6, Part 1] 1895

23. [The Modern Anthropology of India: Ethnography, Themes and Theory 2013]

24. [Greener Pastures: Politics, Markets, and Community Among a Migrant Pastoral People by Arun Agrawal 1999]

25. [Between the Desert and the Sown- Pastoralists of Western India through the Centuries] 2008

Now, out of these British era sources are:


 * Census of India 1901


 * Gazetteer Of The Bombay Presidency Vol-v 1880


 * The Imperial Gazetteer Of India (Volume Xxi) Pushkar To Salween 1908


 * First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium With Minutes of Evidence and Appendices · Volume 6, Part 1 1895

There must be some way we can use these mythological texts. Mahabharata by Ganguli is still one of the most authentic works on the epic. And the version of Bibek Debroy, from what I've read, is even superior. Debroy uses the critical Sanskrit version produced by BORI Institute for his 10 volume interpretation, which was made by examining all the variants of sanskrit Mahabharata from all over India, eliminating all the verses which seemed later additions & interpolations. Sources used for mythological epics are:


 * The Valmiki Ramayana Vol. 1 · Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2017


 * IITK Valmiki Ramayana


 * Valmiki Ramayana by P.P.S. Sastri 1935


 * THE MAHABHARATA of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Complete 18 Parvas By Kesari Mohan Ganguli · 2014


 * Mahabharata Vol. 1 Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2010

Which among the rest of them are to be considered Primary Sources?

Finally, even after this, I am unable to find any problem with these Sections:

1. Recorded Beliefs of Origin

2. Arrival in Rajasthan

3. Dingal

4. Modern era

Please, I would request you to take this into consideration. My only intention was to contribute to this topic in a meaningful way. Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * . You're probably better off moving this discussion to Talk:Charan. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you do that please? I don't know how. Krayon95 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)