User talk:Trickipaedia

Standard Wire Gauge comments
Hi-- I saw your call for a cleanup on the Standard wire gauge page but the article does address the problem you noted (explaining the definitions). Please see the paragraph under "Standard" begining "The system as a whole approximates an exponential curve, plotting diameter against gauge-number..." which constitutes the defining principles. If that meets your needs, please remove the call for cleanup but if not, could you explain more precisely what's missing on the Standard Wire Gauge Talk page please? Thanks! p.r.newman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please feel free to remove my cleanup tag from back in the day. I will reevaluate the current versio of the page and my urge to tag it for cleanup, when I have time. All I can say is that I never casually tag something without thorough consideration. A definition to me is not a general explanation involving related ideas but the final word on the term to be defined. Thank you for reaching out. --Trickipaedia (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kukkutarama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Allen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, the discussion page needs to be linked from the the latest AFD log page. This is typically done by following the steps listed at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. Guliolopez (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
It appears that you copied or moved text from Dream Pool Essays to Lake Khanka. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pheran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panini.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Link
Can you link the policy while making such edits? Please reply with the link to this policy. Venkat TL (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to learn more about Wikipedia's policies than spreading casteism here. See WP:GS/CASTE and never promote casteism again.--Trickipaedia (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trickipaedia where does WP:GS/CASTE say that you are supposed to purge Wikipedia of all kind of Caste information? and where does it say the policy that you referred to in Special:Diff/1107338973? On top of that you have now Special:Diff/1110904786 accused me of promoting casteism. Please reply soon. Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I never said that I am trying to purge caste information. Please read again. I merely said that caste affiliations should be mentioned only if they are relevant. Otherwise, shouldn't every Indian's caste be mentioned in his Wikipedia page? Shouldn't every Westerner's race be mentioned too? The onus is on you to prove that caste must be mentioned for everyone and not for me to prove that it is generally irrelevant in an encyclopaedia. Please spend more time doing something constructive than compaining to admins. I don't know you and as such, I don't understand what pleasure you'd derive from getting me "sanctioned".--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

General Sanctions alert
Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Trickipaedia. Thank you.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bhumihar, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Admantine123 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I was expecting your revert there. I have noted that you have been making tendentious POV edits regarding this caste all over the Wikipedia. You did not say anything specific and therefore, I will undo your revert. I encourage you to go to the talk page and discuss the matter in an unbiased way. Do not start a revert war. Also, what is your opinion on working together to improve the Koeri article? I think the article is quite poor and needs a lot of work to look scholarly. Let's work positively. --Trickipaedia (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What i can see from your edits is that there is a lot of WP:CIR issues in your edits. I have outlined some of your mistakes on Talk page of Bhumihar, where you were involved in removal of sourced content on dubious grounds. Hope you won't be doing that for other articles as the edits done there are enough for admins attention. You also need to see WP:NPA while writing edit history and replying. Meanwhile, let me tell you that the stuff you don't like, was not added by me but by Senior editors like here  . They are well versed in caste related matters and it seems that you have decided the things to be non encyclopaedic by yourself, which appears to be sourced content from WP:RS for other editors. -Admantine123 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you have heard of those terms (CIR, NPA and RS) but if you had actually read the relevant pages, you would have understood that using WP:CIR spuriously against someone is actually a violation of WP:NPA. Please don't teach me all these things and work positively towards writing encyclopaedic content. I have not attacked you as you seem to suggest. And I do not wish to comment on your competence or contributions but only ask you to ask yourself: do you have a bias against this caste or not? I have seen you insert "Bhumihar caste" in pages of criminals and even rumours suggesting that a Bhumihar killed a prominent Koeri politician. Do you want me to tag those edits or my hint is sufficient? Therefore, I request you not to get inflamed over caste articles which seem to the only thing you do here. Wikipedia is not a place for driving agendas and I expect that every editor is impartial and neutral in tone. That article is deliberately written in a slandering bent with pathetic sources like Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya who was no academic but a self-described casteist. I want urge you again to rethink and create an encyclopaedic article on social groups such as this, not an incoherent, biased Internet bizarre pamphlet. I prefer constructive discussion over reporting the matter for biased editing and coat racks. I will discuss with Simon too on the talk page. Thank you.--Trickipaedia (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Koeri. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. '' there is difference between WP: Puffery and outlining view mentioned in any source in encyclopaedic tone. As done by one senior editor here.'' Admantine123 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly what was unconstructive there? Removing "British praise" from the lead? If "British praise" must be there, then it should be somewhere other than the lead. The lead para about a caste should open with "the British praised them"? I see you have a pattern of calling every edit you dislike as "vandalism". Repeating a falsity does not make it true. Discuss on the talk page why "British praise" belongs to the lead of the article as though it is the defining feature of this caste. No census has referred to the Koeris as "Maurya" and that is why I added the phrase "more recently self-described as". This is a modern myth their caste associations have invented as part of their Sanskritisation efforts to be seen as elite Kshatriya warriors of the yore instead of the vegetable growers of the present. I request you to stop accusing users who contribute more to the Wikipedia as doing vandalism when it's obviously not. I understand however that you may have felt hurt as you came to the Wikipedia to edit that article. However, I assure you that I mean no harm and am merely trying to improve a bad article full of puffery.


 * Edit: I just noted that you did not resort to reverting it, allowing others to edit a page that brought you to the Wikipedia and from your various comments and edits, seems important to you. This is a welcome step and I appreciate it. I think allowing other people with less passion can lead to improvement of an article. Thank for taking a step back from caste articles for now (today?). I hope you can work on other things unrelated to caste and that will be good for the Wikipedia.  --Trickipaedia (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Recently, you commented on Talk page of Bhumihar and it appears that you posses a pre-conceived idea of Bhumihars being part of Brahmin caste, which is also something promoted by their caste association. Almost all sources used on that article discusses about their campaign for attaining Brahmin status, by people like Sahjanand Saraswati and Brahmin revolting against the same. What is your take on it? As almost all sources say that they are a different caste other than Brahmins. Also you seem to be engaged in off-topic comments there as you didn't reply, why you removed the stuff regarding their role in 1857 struggle, even though it was clearly mentioned in first page of Kumar Purushottam's work. Let me tell you it is enough to take you to WP:ANI. Though i am very busy now , but will require proper reason for removal of that stuff which was sourced. Please note, nothing in that article was added by me first. It was added by senior editors,as i showed you.-Admantine123 (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage you not to take an accusatory tone. Remember I am not the one to come to the Wikipedia to edit caste articles and only edit caste articles. As for your accusation of "preconceived notion", I merely cited academic works and never claimed anything of my own. You can take this to ANI if you want, but remember I will be bringing up some of your biased edits about this caste which won't help your case. Instead, how about we discuss this amicably? Let's start with reliable sources. Do you consider the casteism activist Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya a reliable, encyclopaedic source? Do you consider the academic historian Dr Kim A. Wagner one? More importantly, do you want to collaborate to improve this article to sound encyclopaedic? If yes, what are some of your ideas for addition? I am interested in improvement, not a conflict as you seem to suggest by invoking ANI over routine edits.--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have answered your question elsewhere about removing the unreliable source from a hundred years ago. I cited a reliable, modern academic source published by the Cambridge University Press. You can read it. If you have reasons to believe that the source I cited is unreliable and the source you would very much like is reliable, then make a case for it, please. Again, my question is: since you are so passionate about caste articles, why don't you contribute something? Propose ideas to improve this page, which was dead for maybe 5 or so years (I haven't checked the date).
 * --Trickipaedia (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no "take" on the matter. The Bhumihars claim to be Brahmans and the Pundits do not accept them as such. The same is true for the Tyagis, Mohyals, Chitpavans etc. Nonetheless, the Government records list them as "Bhumihar Brahmin". The academic or historical sources refer to them as agricultural Brahmins, martial Brahmins, Zamindar Brahmins etc. My "take" is that these differing opinions should all be written in an encyclopaedic manner. I don't have any other "take" on who's who in the world of castes. However, what is your take on Koeris, Kurmis and Kahars claiming "Kshatriya" status?--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

first of all, whatever i have added were sourced content. I am not the creator of the cited source. Ashwini Kumar have written that one theory regarding their origin is that they are hybrid caste and this was first added by in 2014. There was attempt to remove that stuff many a times by caste warriors, and it was retained by, an administrator again and again. I have just added their recent occupation part and it is also sourced, also no caste is engaged in what is thought to be their traditional occupation right now. So, that's the fact. Cannot be considered as biased edit as you have described. Thirdly, you still don't reply why you removed stuff regarding their non participation in 1857 struggle.? It seems a doubtful matter. Admantine123 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: If one source say that they had conspicuous role in 1857 struggle and another tells that they didn't participate at all. There is a proper way to include both views by naming both the authors. You may write like this: "XYZ says that they had conspicuous role in 1857 struggle, while Purushottam Kumar says that they didn't participated and offered signal service to the Britishers." This is better than removing it entirely, which is considered vandalism. -Admantine123 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You have used the term "caste warrior". Given your opening this account to edit a caste page and thanking people for writing about some caste, your edit history being primarily about caste and mentioning caste of a murderer and the murdered and mentioning a rumour about a prominent Koeri being murdered by a person of Bhumihar caste, should you do some self-reflection over your primary interest here? Btw I have repeatedly answered your question about the 1857 thing. Should I cite that reliable source here which said that the Bhumihars had a "conspicuous role" in 1857 which alienated the British Army from them?--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My take is simple, nowhere i have mentioned that a particular caste is Kshatriya or Brahmin. If they claim, and we have sources saying that they claim. I have included it as claim only. The origin myths are associated with evey caste and that forms an important part of articles related to any caste and tribe. But being described as myth only. I neither have problem in mentioning Parshuram myth of Bhumihars on their caste page, nor i have problem with Kshatriya myth of other castes.- Admantine123 (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me assure you that I have no preconceived notion either. I humbly encourage you to assume WP:GOODFAITH and help create a better encyclopaedia and if possible, take a break from editing caste articles, not simply because it's a contentious topic but also because it's unhealthy to be immersed in only caste editing. It will help the Wikipedia and yourself. Thank you. :) --Trickipaedia (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All right, we can do that. We can have both sources. However, the narrative will be changed and the whole thing will need to be rewritten. Allow me some time to think about how to do that. The whole "varna status" WP:COATRACK needs a revamp because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to that topic.--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * mentioning a rumour about a prominent Koeri being murdered by a person of Bhumihar caste,
 * Can you show me the edit where i have mentioned this. I have a total of 18000+ edits and that are not on caste pages only. I have created many history related articles, and even biographies. Most recently of an artist too. But let it go. The thing is the edit you are pointing too, is not a rumour, but it was also mentioned in Ashwini Kumar and added by Sitush earlier. Admantine123 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You really want me to find your edit about Jagdeo Prasad murder "rumour"? And your edit about a Bhumihar gangster killing a Baniya gangster? Man, I want to leave all that sleuthing because I want to engage in positive discussions and not finger-pointing. Time is precious. Please propose ideas on article improvement if you have any and let's refrain from diff-sleuthing. Let it go.--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's mentioned in source cited. I think in Ashwani Kumar, it is clearly written that, many Backwards thought that Prasad was killed at the instance of a Bhumihar minister of Congress. I have hard copy version of that book. Also, Isn't it true that Brij Bihari Prasad was killed as a revenge for the killing of Chhotan Shukla? Man, what is the problem in mentioning the things that are sourced. Haven't you listened about WP:NOTCENSORED. -Admantine123 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On Varna status: Nothing wrong in including both views about their status. It is done for all castes and even for Rajputs, it has been explained in great volume. Even, i was the one to add the Shudra thing on Koeri caste. It was not there earlier. We need all views to be incorporated. If you found modern source for Bhumihars regarding their Brahmin claim, include it, but no one has authority to remove the other sources that call them Shudra. This is how we should go.Admantine123 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you calling Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya a reliable source? Who was he? His page says that he was a Bengali Brahmin and a casteism promoter and nothing else. You conveniently question the Oxford published work of Dr KS Singh, the Director General of Anthropological Survey of India and prefer the casteist voice of Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. One wonders why.--Trickipaedia (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Thought" is a WP:WEASEL word. Many people think many things about political assassinations; the question is if those thoughts belong to an encyclopaedia. Secondly, why should this gangster war mention castes? Do all such murders get castes named? Lastly, you were denying making such edits and are now backing them. Man, this is exhausting; let it go. I have other things to do than get bogged down by caste article edit conflicts. Please focus on your other work here that you mentioned for now and allow a little break. I will address all your concerns and we will improve this article. Thank you.
 * --Trickipaedia (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The killing of Prasad by a minister and the caste of that minister is mentioned here in this source . I repeat, nothing added by me on Wikipedia is without any source. --Admantine123 (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Admantine123 (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)