User talk:Ratan375

Welcome!

Hello, Ratan375, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ramayan (1987 TV series) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Brihaspati (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I added wrong information? Luv Kush was not part of original show Ramayan. It was a different show. You can see in this article. https://indianexpress.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/looking-back-at-ramanand-sagar-ramayana-6334251/

Even though later reruns it was merged with original Ramayan. Originally it was a different show. Why don't you see this page Luv Kush? There is no information about it's sequel on original Ramayan page so I added those informations. Ratan375 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratan375, I removed information because it was not suitable for WP:LEAD. You are free to add this information in later paragraphs of page. Thanks!-- Brihaspati (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Divyam Seth. Your recent edit(s) to the page Mahabharat (1988 TV series) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also, I would like you to read Role of Abhimanyu in Virata Parva and wikipedia article of Abhimanyu who was son of Shubhadra, for more information. Divyam Seth (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please visit Arjuna's article. Arjuna married Ulopi & Chitrangada when he went for tirtha yatra. And when he returned he visited dwarka and married Subhadra Ratan375 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ratan, different version has different stories and this was about a tele serial Mahabharat of 1988 and I think there were no such characters like Uloupi and chitraganda in that serial. By the way, if you gets any reliable source of that please cite the same there, else, it may be challenged by some one in future. Thanks!Divyam Seth (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duryodhan and Samay mentioned about both characters. And it's spin off series Mahabharat katha covered story of both Ulupi & Chitrangada. There is no such version where Arjun married both of them after Subhadra Ratan375 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narakasura

Please do not remove cited texts. Narakasura, as we all know, was a mythical figure, not at all historical. Chaipau (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one saying he was a historical. It's not necessary to add mythical. Asura itself is itself is myth. So it's not necessary to add mythical word. Ratan375 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the cited text. What are you trying to say here? Chaipau (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical & mythological are same word. What's the issue. And citation should be on end of the word. Ratan375 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If myth and mythology are same, then keep to what the citation is saying. Chaipau (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mythological is proper word for characters which are found in scriptures. mythology usually refers to the collected myths of a group of people. Ratan375 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not agree. You cannot claim "mythology is the proper word for characters in scriptures"? I don't believe you. Please stop this nonsense. You cannot override what is given in the citation, and that too from Sircar. Chaipau (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking any nonsense. You're the one who have problem Ratan375 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaya Bow

In your edit in article Karna, you mentioned bow Vijaya. Karna didn't wield Vijaya bow given by Parashurama. Please remove it. Few days back wikipedia member Material scientist removed content in Vijaya (bow) which you mentioned in article Karna. Fire star on heat (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly mentioned in the source that Parasurama gifted him that bow. Material scientist removed the content because it was unsourced. There are several articles which mentioned Vijaya as Karna's bow. I'm not making any self-made stories. All Wikipedia articles depend on sources. This is one of the article which clearly linked Vijaya with Karna https://logicalhindu.com/vijaya-bow-dhanush-great-karna-mahabharat/ .Ratan375 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ratan, these kind of sources are not acceptable. In article Karna also you mentioned same. There are many misconceptions. I will explain you. Fire star on heat (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I explain you ? Fire star on heat (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your property. Even admins have no rights to remove content which have reference. Wikipedia is based on sources. Your opinion doesn't matter. Only information from sources are matter mater.Ratan375 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how you will decide these articles are not authentic? Ratan375 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that wikipedia is not my property but these kind of citations are not accepted. They are fanbased. In that case, there are many blogs. Hope you understand Fire star on heat (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few days back, you asked me to add citation for Bhima defeating Karna on 17th day. Did you remember? I added citation in article Bhima on your request. As per your edits and description, Karna wielded Vijaya bow on 17th day. How did he lose to Bhima and Satyaki on 17th day. The thing is that is not original divine Vijaya bow. There are many Vijay dhaush in Mahabharat. One is Vijay dhanush of Parashurama. This is divine bow- even on wielding this, he lost to Bhishma. 2nd one is Rukmi's Vijaya bow. As far as I know, it is also divine bow and indestructible. 3rd one is Karna's Vijay dhanush. Before 17t day of war, Duryodhana was under confident because Pandavas were gaining upper hand. In order to boost confidence, Karna designed, decorated a new bow and told Duryodhana that it was Vijay dhanush given by Parashurama. But that's not given by Parashurama. Parashurama gave Bhargavastra to Karna. This is truth. So please remove content related to Vijay dhanush in Karna. I'm unable to edit it. Kindly remove it. It's my sincere request. Please look into it. Don't ignore it and reply me on my talk page. Thank you. Have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only believe in source. Wikipedia is not your or my property. I'm adding not one but 3 sources in the article. Wikipedia is all about sources. Ratan375 (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Fire star on heat, you have to understand that you can't remove content which have sources. No one can add their own opinion. This is not personal blog. Ratan375 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2020/4/25/Bhagwan-Parshuram-a-wonderful-blend-of-Brahmatej-and-Kshatratej.html The Hitavada, The People's Paper, is the largest selling broadsheet English daily newspaper of Central India. And you find it fan based source? Ratan375 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If possible work on Karna's previous birth story. It is said that he was demon in his previous birth. Also try to work on Divine bow of Abhimanyu. Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Ratan. But still I have a doubt. Karna had Vijaya bow in his hands on 17th day. As you told, Vijaya bow will give victory to its possessor. But still Karna lost to Bhima & Satyaki on 17th day of war and he also failed to protect his son from Arjuna. Why? Fire star on heat (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only mythological experts can give that answers. But several occasions Vijaya bow was mentioned. Sanjay also described about Vijaya said these words, the Suta's son of great valour, that hero, taking up his ancient and foremost of bows called VIJAYA, stringed it and rubbed the string repeatedly. https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08064.htm?fbclid=IwAR26wpshhBsWpkYpXDMWH2MsMTjFDGwjwW9X9Z7uPOpXR0N9xomiRRBVrYA Ratan375 (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ratan375, I came to know about it. I'm not saying Karna didn't wield it. I opposed your edits because I knew that Rukmi wielded Vijay dhanush. You added that also. You added sacred texts reference. You did a splendid job. I know it might have been a terrific task to find those proofs. I just asked the reason because you mentioned the wielder of Vijay dhanush is sure of victory. Karna lost many times in battle. And you specified that he took Vijay dhanush on 17th day. Even then he was defeated by Bhima, Satyaki and failed to protect his son from Arjuna when Arjun gave challenge. I asked hoping that you will give better explanation. Because you know far better than me. And not with any intention. If you come to know the reason, please reply me on my talk page. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Vijaya (bow). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.


If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Ed6767 talk! 03:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get this resolved, you can use Twinkle to take this to WP:AN3. Ed6767 talk! 03:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing was done with the Pasupatastra article --Pareshbh (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding info along with sources. A user Fire star on heat continuously removing contents even after your revision. Ratan375 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please dont treat me as enemy. I brought this to notice of a wikipedia member. Even he told that sources are not acceptable. Still you are adding. Its upto you and it will be risky if you persistently add this content and sources. Please don't do these kind of edits. You may be blocked from editing. Fire star on heat (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This article from a news portal https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2020/4/25/Bhagwan-Parshuram-a-wonderful-blend-of-Brahmatej-and-Kshatratej.html This is definitely a reliable source.

And you are not my enemy nor you're my friend. Don't think like that.Ratan375 (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babruvahana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chitrangada (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasupatastra

Hello, Ratan! You have undone my change for Pasupatastra saying that there is historical evidence and that Gods themselves are a myth. If you read the article for the Bible, it talks about it being an account of "historical" happenings. Also, history is what is written. There is enough documentation in Hindu texts for Pasupatastra. Pareshbh (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will be mythology until its discovered. Whatever is written in puranic text can't be say history. Ratan375 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you consider Biblical accounts and Jesus as history or mythology? --Pareshbh (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bible is just a religious scripture. Ratan375 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuna

Please do not use The Mahabharata as a source at Arjuna. This has been discussed on the article talk page. You should also avoid newspapers. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I use Mahabharata as source? Ratan375 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you used "The Hindu" as a source for the first time? Ratan375 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used a modern translation of The Mahabharata. No, I didn't use The Hindu as a source - it was already there. Please also stop adding images to the article - we are not a catalogue from an art gallery. Look, you have been told some of this before and are aware of the sanctions regime in place, so really should be taking more care. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember you are added the Hindu. And I believe for other names or small infos about deities you have to believe in news portal. Ratan375 (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Find the diff. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I came in. The Hindu is already listed as a source at that point. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK man! But I don't think there's any wrong to use news paper as source for deities. You will not find other names such a properly in any modern books. Ratan375 (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can prove that, either. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with using photos? Photos help to grasp the reader's attention better than a wall of text. https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Pages_Wanting_Photos Ratan375 (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopaedia. We're meant to be mostly text. And there are so many images available that you would probably need to discuss which ones to add. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Brihannala into Arjuna. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mandavi
added a link pointing to Chandrabhaga
Shrutakirti
added a link pointing to Chandrabhaga

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mandavi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chandrabhaga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sockpuppetry block

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]