Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeypore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, JeyporeRajMahal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Kingdom of Jeypore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
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.
This article is based on unreliable sources from the Raj era. Please see [1] and this noticeboard discussion for the problems with British Raj sources. They should generally not be used, and certainly whole articles should never be based on them.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you add a comment to a talk page, don't post it at the top. New posts go at the bottom of discussions.
When you add a comment to a talk page, sign it at the end like this: ~~~~. That will produce your signature and a timestamp for the benefit of other editors to see who posted the comment and when. You were informed of this last September in the Welcome section of this page.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for you to use to publish your journalism. All articles require reliable sources and that article doesn't have them.
I asked you a question on my own talkpage, to which you have not replied. I and RexxS have answered your questions, can you please in return answer mine: why do you here speak of "us" and "our page"? You say "can you please tell us why you want to delete our page kingdom of Jeypore". Are you speaking for more than one person? Is User:JeyporeRajMahal an account used by a group? If so, what kind of group? And you've been asked several times now to sign your posts with five tildes, ~~~~, for instance by RexxS just above. Please start doing that, for other people's convenience. Bishonen | tålk04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
When I say 'us' and 'our' I mean to say my collegues who helped in this article with their bits and pieces. Well, I have edited the page as much as I could, I even sent you a link which mentions the 2013 released government website article on the royal family of Jeypore. I have already told you before that just because there are not enough sources on the history of this particular kingdom does not make it wrong. Many parts mentioned in the article are known to everyone, there are other reliable sources in forms of books but I did not use it because an online version for the book is not available. And Have you ever read the history of any indian princely state that does not use Raj sources or books of that era ? Every Indian princely state uses one or more Raj sources. However, I have removed all Raj sources, all that is left now is fact.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still pretty strange to speak of yourself as "us". And you say I have already told you before that just because there are not enough sources on the history of this particular kingdom does not make it wrong. Yes, it does. If there are not enough sources, that means we shouldn't have an article about it; it's as simple as that. "Known to everyone" is not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia. Please see the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
If you want to point me to some articles, or even one article, that relies on Raj sources, please provide a link to such an article so that I can find it. You make an article link by typing the article name (it must be very exact) and putting double square brackets around it. For example, [[Kingdom of Jeypore]] will make the link Kingdom of Jeypore. Bishonen | tålk11:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have removed almost all the parts that heavily relied on Raj sources. Please go through the article for once and you will see that now it only has basic information about the kingdom. For example, the facts on the last few kings like Vikrama Dev IV is absolutely correct. The material under sub-heading 'Later titular kings' is also referenced under the relevant sources like newspaper the times of india. Basically, almost 3/4 of history on British Raj are taken from Raj sources. Even in the schools most of the historcial facts were identified by british and written by them. So it is difficult to find a lot of sources on kingdoms like jeypore which had a rich cultural history but due to obscurity at the old times they have not been authored by other historians.
One link can be : Mohanty's article on Jeypore Kingdom published in the government website of Odisha [[2]]
Please advise me on how to keep this page from deletion. Is there any way I can still keep the article ?
And please do check your talk page, I spotted something wrong and irrelevant on Solar dynasty page in wiki edited by nittawinoda, please see I have tried to explain how he irrelevantly published his own political agenda.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though wikipedia does not support Raj era sources but what if the Raj era sources are true sometimes. FOR EXAMPLE - there is an extract that explains the events following the advent of the british in the kingdom. Reportedly, the british destroyed a fort of Jeypore somewhere in the 16th century according to the reports. The ruins of the fort can still be found in Jeypore but the people are unaware of how this fort got destroyed. This article however threw some light and rephrased the british conquest and the destruction of the fort. There are many examples like this.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JeyporeRajMahal, you're lucky that RexxS saw your attacks before I did, because I would simply have blocked you, not warned. You will be blocked from editing the next time you insult somebody and/or assume bad faith on their part.
I note also that you have a lot of trouble understanding Wikipedia's principles regarding reliable sources, as you show again above ("Even though wikipedia does not support Raj era sources but what if the Raj era sources are true sometimes"). I'm frankly tired of explaining them to you over and over. I give up. Bishonen | tålk16:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Did you read my whole message ? Because I seriously think you didn't. Did you see the link that I sent you. I think you are ignoring it because you know that cannot be considered irrelevant. Because its an article from the year 2013 and published by the government website that has all relevant details.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited out everything irrelevant from the page. Now the only details are a geneological table, a couple of historical pictures of the princely state, and few other general information. I do not think now its necessary to delete it, do let me know if any change is needed. And please stop complaining about my editing skills and handling of wikipedia. I am still new to it. So chill.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
