This is an archive of past discussions with User:RegentsPark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi RegentsPark, I thought this ANI thread might be of interest to you since you warned this user in the past for such behaviour-[1]. It's clear that this user paid no heed to that warning since his edit history is dominated with gross attacks and condescending remarks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
anniversary templates
only reason i reverted the template is because he has posted a number of duplicates, but i suppose that's fine. it just read as test edits to me. also a little unusual for a very new account, but then maybe I'm biting the newcomer... -- Aunva6talk - contribs21:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
No worries. Some newcomers hang around posting templates or making minor, often pointless, edits while they get used to Wikipedia. RegentsPark (comment) 21:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your edit in List of battles involving the Maratha Confederacy:
Hi,
A consensus is indeed necessitated when there exists a contention regarding the outcome of a battle, war, or siege. However, in this instance, all the wars have unequivocal results, corroborated by numerous credible sources. By perusing the links that annotate the battles, one can readily ascertain the results. The issue at hand pertains to the table of results, where victories of the Marathas were erroneously represented as defeats. I rectified this discrepancy and had also cited an incomplete list prior to the table. I implore you to abstain from such edits, as they consume my time and effort in adding or correcting information. It would be more prudent to question the editor who initially created the article, given the numerous instances of incorrect results. I trust my perspective is now lucid to you. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mohammad Umar Ali: It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. If you're making a major change to an article, you should seek consensus. At the minimum, you should add a note on the talk page explaining why you're making the change. Since you've reverted me, I suggest you add that explanation to the talk page. RegentsPark (comment) 13:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Hacking Sunday at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! The event runs for the whole day, though you are welcome to come by for as little or as long as you'd like.
A documentary filmmaker will be in attendance, working on Rabbit Hole, which aims to document Wikipedia's community to showcase how our network tackles important questions about how history is recorded. They will be in attendance to film snippets of this gathering for the documentary. It is completely optional to be a part of the film and there will be protocols in place if you wish to not be filmed. If there are any questions about the filming please reach out to the filmmaker, Meg Vatterott (meg.vatterott@gmail.com).
Thanks for blocking Karinvanderlaag. I was just in the middle of opening an ANI case on them, but luckily saw that you had meanwhile blocked already. Saves me having to work up a case, and one less drama for the drama boards! :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
HaughtonBrit
Hey RegentsPark. Firstly, I want to thank you again for helping me out a few days back with the personal attacks. I was hoping if you could take a look at the evidence I presented for RangersRus here and provide any sort of comment. I know this isn't ideal way to do things, but you have to understand that his disruption has gotten so bad now that it will be quite difficult for admins who haven't dealt with HB to deal with it. The guy is openly using, at the very least, 2 or 3 different accounts and voting in his own AFDs; it's completely appalling, he's openly mocking everyone and having a grand old time doing so. I'm fairly confident that if you read the evidence, you will also come to the conclusion that there's blatant sock puppetry going on. Please, please take a look. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Also when these accounts get nailed, it'll be quite easy and straight forward to deal with any other sock accounts who attempt to disrupt AFDs. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
HaughtonBrit has created such a convoluted, extensive web of lies that his sockpuppetry cases have acquired an esoteric nature; it's just a fact that a lot the content and MO nuances are gonna go over a non-SA admin's head. I also admit that my previous SPI was not well written and I definitely jumped the gun with the report, which I explained to Abecedare as well. Since March, a lot of new evidence has come forth. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Southasianhistorian8: I'm sorry but this is going to take longer than I thought. I did take a quick look at the case and it is very strong but I don't have the time right now (I just returned from a long trip and RL work is taking precedence) to take a full look. Perhaps @Bishonen, Vanamonde93, and Doug Weller: can help since Abecedare and spiff are not editing right now.RegentsPark (comment) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. I understand you got back from a trip and I'm really sorry for laying this on you, but that was only because you and Abecedare are the only 2 admins who are familiar with HB and the content nuances. I don't want your RL stuff to suffer because of a ridiculous sock master- there's really no rush. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not see what you see as strong case. Did you see my comment in "comment by other users"? @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: been through this case before and did not find it a strong case. This editor likes to create deceptive narratives and this is all that was in SPI case before and now. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
If memory serves HB socks edit some of the same topics I do, so I'm afraid I'm not well-placed to take any action here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@RegentsPark, if it's not too much to ask, could you take a look at the RangersRus SPI - it's just really appalling that this sock master, despite all his deception and lies, gets to be rewarded by all his sockpuppetry, while everyone else plays by the rules in AFDs, he not only illegitimately casts votes despite being an obvious sock, but uses multiple accounts to vote, as he did before-[2]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Southasianhistorian8: I don't think I can help. HB was a familiar name but, when I looked at the case, I realized I haven't actually followed their "career". Doing a behavioral investigation from scratch is just not practical. Perhaps ask Abecedare, I notice they've started lightly editing again? RegentsPark (comment) 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I remember taking a looking at this a month or so back and finding the commonalities pretty suspicious but, especially in light of inconclusive/exculpatory CU findings, insufficient to issue a sock-block. So, barring the emergence of some new smoking gun, IMO the best course forward may be to set aside the socking issue with respect to the accounts listed at the latest HB SPI and just focus on whether their activities are in compliance with wikipedia policies or disruptive in any way. That would be much easier to address (at ANI, ARE etc) than to re-wade through the editing history of the current accounts and all the known HB socks. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Abecedare, could you look at the Festivalfalcon873 case, it's pretty straightforward even for a layman, and you dealt with that account before, and given the overlap between both accounts in AFD votes [3], it undeniably proves both accounts are his and being employed to twist AFDs in their favour, and it's certainly enough for DUCK blocks for both accounts. Also HB has a track record of evading CU checks and obviously has an extremely large amount of IPs and proxies at his disposal (Yamla finding no evidence of CU block evasion for MehmoodS, Finmas & Dazzem being deemed "Unrelated" and "Inconclusive" by CUs, Ponyo stating that Finmas and Dekhoaayadon were using exclusively VPNs, him employing dozens of proxies to hound me during the fall of 2023 up until I reported RangersRus; Abecedare, everytime you blocked his IP for block evasion, he would just come back with another one as if nothing happened) + to suggest that HaughtonBrit is watching all of this unfold and not saying and doing anything is pretty unbelievable.
I'm primarily concerned with him disrupting AFDs and making multiple votes there, that's extremely unfair for the rest of us and it's disturbing that his extreme use of sock puppetry gets to avail him. I'm genuinely baffled that admins are being so lenient with him. How am I even supposed to deal with vote stacking in AFDs? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a sequel event to the 2023 Governors Island Wiknic and will feature a workshop led by AfroCrowd at the ArtCrawl Harlem house. We'll also encourage collaboration for wiki-coverage of ArtCrawl Harlem's current exhibition at Governors Island.
All are welcome, new and experienced!
Bring a picnic blanket and some potluck, as well as some sunscreen! We'll also provide sandwiches for everyone, and maybe some NYC pizza too, but we encourage you to bring your own favorite dishes to share, especially for those food cultural topics you would like to improve on Wikipedia.
Because there was disruptive editing going on, and that disruptive editing spanned several months. Note that, though the article is protected, you can propose changes on the talk page.RegentsPark (comment) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Raj in saraswat
Hi @RegentsPark.
Nice,you observed that.Yes that is British Raj source added by someone else.I just highlighted the details of Burton as I knew burton was a British raj officer.I have tagged your name in the talk section of @Arjayay,where this had been discussed and link to the burtons Sindh(1851) has been provided.
Existing WP:Raj source in saraswat page-
“According to buton(1851) Saraswat Brahmins originating in Balochistan were called sindhur and were considered a low caste. They have a legend of origin related to Lord Ramachandra, who could not find a priest in Balochistan and applied a Tilaka on the head of some Mleccha”.(Mentioned just in foot note of the judgen not in the main book and the statement is from book sindh(1851)). RobertJudeson (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
“Cite book |last=Singh |first=Kumar Suresh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g9MVAQAAMAAJ |title=People of India: India's communities |date=1998 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-563354-2 |language=en”
In the WP:RAJ link provided by you they have banned this book.I am planning to delete this citation cite-wide before that can you confirm this for me once.Is this the same book mentioned in WP:Raj? RobertJudeson (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Please note that you may be blocked for persistent caste promotion and edit warring without consensus in contentious caste articles! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This special online-only WikiWednesday will be dedicated to the Wikimedia Movement Charter referendum, and also to exploring future options of other online-centric events for our Wikimedia NYC chapter.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.
Meeting info:
@JBW: Similar messages sent only to stress on this fact. A particular message can be sent to multiple editors. It's not a dangerous thing on Wikipedia. I have successfully created many pages here. Okay, no need to revert it.
These are my created articles. Feel free to delete one by one if you wish.
@JBW: Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is a prestigious Indian award which was awarded to V. Balsara in 1994. See official website (Govt.) for reference here. If anybody assumes it a biased one, what to do now?
Wikifulness (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Wikifulness: I took a look at the deleted article at V. Balsara and while the subject is certainly notable, the article's language was overly laudatory and more suitable for a tribute than an encyclopedia. It also was often a close paraphrase of this blog. Did you use an LLM to create the article?
My suggestion would be to start and develop a draft at Draft:V. Balsara based upon reliable sources (not blogs and web-forum posts) and to write it in your own words. Have the article reviewed before trying to move it into mainspace. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wikifulness: Abecedare's suggestion is a good one. I took a look at the draft and you should remove all superlatives (e.g., renowned). Also, to demonstrate notability, try linking to the articles for the films and particularly the awards (if the articles exist). As written, notability does not stand out. RegentsPark (comment) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the inaugural event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series at Civic Hall! All are welcome, and newcomers and aspiring editors are especially encouraged to attend.
Hi RegentsPark. I've pinged you at Talk:History of Hinduism#No consensus, instead of Doug Weller, because Doug and I have a good working-relation, and this issue may be best served with an admin less involved with me, and also, as far as I can tell, quite critical of my edits (which is not to say that Doug is not critical!! I hope I have phrased this carefully enough). Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Bring a picnic blanket and some potluck, as well as some sunscreen! We'll also provide a little something for everyone, but we encourage you to bring your own favorite dishes to share, especially for those food cultural topics you would like to improve on Wikipedia.
Why you moved chattogram to Chittagong I have disclosed the reason in Talk:Chattogram. I have moved the page from Chittagong to Chattogram as it is the official name by the government of Bangladesh and also locally used most and according to Google trends Chattogram is the most used name. I am moving according to WP:COMMONNAMETherealbey (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Therealbey: Hi. Since there is an ongoing discussion and a previous failed requested move, this counts as a contentious move and you need to get consensus first. Please use WP:RM to start a consensus discussion. RegentsPark (comment) 13:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You're probably not back yet, but as I saw you post on the Gandhi talk page, I thought I'd take the liberty.
If you can, please take a look at Ganges Canal. There are suspicions of sockpuppetry. the editor SPGsec is an WP:SPA and has restored in one fell swoop material added over a four-day editing fury by a now banned editor. I did post on SPGsec's talk page. I also added various tags to the article, but I think SPGsec's additions might need to be reverted, perhaps the article might even need to be locked down for week or ten days in the status quo version. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
the britishers aswell as the natives called the sikh empire simply as 'Punjab' , during the various treaties singed between sikhs and britishers, they always mention it as 'sovernity of punjab' i will cite more sources *here* which you can then look into. WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect a new Board of Directors. We will elect three board seats, half of the elected seats on the board. After being elected, those elected can potentially appoint more seats.
We will also focus on the Wikimedia NYC Strategic Plan, our Financial Report, and Annual and Monthly event teams for the coming year.
Election info:
To run for election or to vote, you must be a dues-paying member of Wikimedia New York City, having renewed in the past 12 months.
Voting will be both online, via emailed ballots from the ElectionBuddy service, and in-person.
The poll will be open for the 48 hours between 8pm EDT on September 23 and 8pm EDT on September 25.
For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the "Editing to the Beat" event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series at Lehman College. This is the second event of the series, following the inaugural event at Civic Hall in July. Led by a 9-person live band demonstrating Caribbean and Latin musical genres, we'll engage with efforts such as WikiProject Latin Music, and will encourage editing on both English and Spanish Wikipedia. All are welcome, and newcomers and aspiring editors are especially encouraged to attend. Registration via Eventbrite is required for building entry, and is also encouraged on the event page on Meta.
The Wikicurious series is supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies. Wikimedia NYC is an official affiliate and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also supporting this event are Equis, The Celia Cruz Foundation, and the International Museum of Salsa. In association with WikiCari and AfroCrowd.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.
Meeting info:
Date: Saturday, September 21, 2024
Time: 1:00–7:00 p.m.
Location:Lehman College (CUNY) 250 Bedford Park Blvd W, Bronx, NY
Equipment: Please bring your own computer. We are not yet able to provide loaner laptops.
Hey RegentsPark, recently I've had some disagreements with a user Jattlife121 on the page Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada, if you go through the page's history, you'll see that much of the content clearly resembled AI-generated language (whether that was done intentionally or unwittingly I'm not sure, Jattlife insists that he did not use AI), see examples on my t/p-[6]. In addition, much of the events were clearly WP:SYNTHeized to erroneously boost content and incidents on the page (i.e. sources which spoke of racism and online discrimination against international students were used to state that Sikh students were the targets of discrimination, and sources which spoke about general racism against early immigrants were used in this train of logic- 1) Early immigrants in Canada faced discrimination 2) Sikhs were some of the early immigrants who arrived to Canada 3) Hence, Sikhs were the target of extensive discrimination, even though many of the sources made little or no mention of point 2)
Many incidents were straight up fabricated. And the original version of the article seemed to be overly zealous in promoting the WSO-[7], which made me suspicious of possible conflict of interest.
Now, Jattlife has added this section on the WSO page-[8] once again defending the WSO The WSO have responded that "Sikhs from various places and groups attended, and not all of them ended up joining the WSO, which was formally founded following this event" and that Bagri "was neither a member of the WSO nor joined after the convention". The source he provided was from a tweet by that very same organization. This is very clearly against Wikipedia's rules. I'm wondering if you could chime in here and remind Jattlife121 of Wikipedia's rules and norms surrounding proper sourcing and WP:SYNTH. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey Regents Park,
The Sikh Wikipedia community have had a lot of issues with this individual due to his constant negative editing and removal of content on the page. I currently have a whole backlog of stuff which I will be presenting soon. His particular focus is on discredited Sikh organisations, but if you give me a day or so this will be presented strongly.
I find it very odd that an individual who evidently isn't a Sikh hasn't constantly made edits in a negative light and I do think Wikipedia need to intervene. I also believe his account has been nominated in the past for deletion.
Secondly, you are commenting on an individual from India in which there may be inherent conflict of interest with these articles, so its laughable you mention conflicts of interest. Jattlife121 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You're free to present whatever you wish against me- just know that it isn't against Wikipedia rules to "edit negatively" as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and I always use reliable, academic sources to back up my work.
However, you'd save yourself a lot of time by just reading up on the different types of sources on Wikipedia, and which ones are deprecated and which ones are preferred-[9]. We can't use tweets from an involved party to write exculpatory content on Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jattlife121: Since you've taken this to ANI, I'll let this be handled there. However, do note that comments, such as the ones you make above, about the ethnicity (or lack of) or location (in or out of India) are absolutely not acceptable and you cannot question the edits of another edit based on what you think is their ethnicity or national origin. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. We don't know, and generally cannot question the credentials of any user. Our main concern is that content be verifiable using reliable sources and that articles give due weight to significant viewpoints and avoid giving weight to minority viewpoints. Finally, articles should not contain promotional material. Best wishes. RegentsPark (comment) 21:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
RP, can this proxy be blocked per Wikipedia's policy on open proxies-[10]. Wikipedia's geolocation states this is a VPN-[11], and one of the sockmaster's other proxy, was also blocked as a proxy a while back-[12]. Both proxies have the same geolocation, ISP, and first 6 IP digits. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Personally I would have given him another chance. The draft he wrote is actually pretty good and (with some copyediting) would be a decent addition to Wikipedia, but he hasn't learned about proper sourcing. It looks like he had removed the wall-of-text sources from the draft with intent to add them back as inlline citations, before he was blocked. At first I thought he had a COI based on the username, but the name turns out to be historical. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I haven't seen any reasonable source for the nawab and, according to google maps, Atrauli is a small town in India. Add the repeated submission of the draft and this looks dubious. Still, if you think differently then let's see what the user says.RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Move Protected Page Parshurama.
I originally wrote this for the ANI thread and only bothered to re-write the intro so it's worded a little generally but hopefully that's okay. I'm posting this to you directly as it occurred to me there's no point saying this there since as I understand it, nothing can happen unless you either agree or I open a discussion at AN (rather than leave it at ANI). It sounds like you're busy so if can't deal with it but agree for any admin to reduce it if they feel it's justified, I'll go back to posting it there.
In my opinion, it's worth assessing if the ECP is still needed at Parashurama. While I don't disagree with the protection at the time, the focus of the article isn't something that would normally come under WP:CASTE community authorised discretionary sanctions. From what I see, the only reason it did is because of the long standing claims of living descendant [13][14][15]. That section was IMO rightfully excised just before protection [16]. (IMO it's rare we should have anything about living descendants of a mythology figure and when we do, it definitely needs careful attention to the wording.)
AFAICT, no one has tried to descent stuff back during the 30 months ECP AFAICT which might just be because of ECP. But while there does seem to have been a fair amount of silliness over that section over the years, I wonder if its removal might be enough to stop such nonsense at least from confirmed editors. In other words the presence of the section was the catalyst for much of the silliness around it.
If we don't expect that to reoccur, as far as I see, ECP under CASTE community sanctions cannot be justified. And I'm not convinced there was enough generally silliness from confirmed editors to justify long term ECP under our normal protection policy. Since the article also comes under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan it could be moved to that where it would be easier to justify it. However it's quite difficult now, and probably not worth assessing how much of the non descent disruption came from confirmed editors. I will note that that extended confirmed protection at the end of 2021 seems to have been the first time the article was ever protected so semi-protection was never tried.
So I wonder if it might be better to at least try moving it to semi-protection. I'd note that AFAICT, while Vishnu is extended confirmed, currently the only other of the commonly recognised 10 avatars of Vishnu that seem to be protected are Krishna, Rama and Kalki and they're all semi-protected. And Vishnu's protection is recent [17] and seems to relate to a problematic sock but I think Prashurama might be far removed enough from what the sock is trying to do to avoid too much focus just like the other avatars of Vishnu. I know very little about this so perhaps there's something about Parashurama which makes such disruption much more likely here, especially perhaps stuff relating to the claims of descent. (I do see people claiming to be descendants of Rama but this might be at more of an individual level.) But wonder if this is just an unfortunate case where some nonsense was added back in 2007 and then became the focus of disruption which wouldn't have occurred otherwise.
I'm not sure I follow everything you've written but you're right about the caste related. I think I used WP:CASTE because the last edit was social group related but, looking back further, the bulk of the disruption is, for want of a better phrasing, "god related". Regardless, 3 years is a long time and I'm happy to unprotect. I'll comment on ANI as well. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful follow-up! RegentsPark (comment) 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Admantine123: You can apply for a username change. See Wikipedia:Changing_username. WP:CHUS is the easiest for changing on en.wiki, but you might want to use [18] if you're editing on other language wikis as well.
I don't Understand what I did wrong things?
Hey Probably 3 days before I change some of the line of Indian independence movement wikipedia page where credit of Drafting constitution is given to B N Rau. Well it's highly inaccurate. So I change it and made it absolutely accurate for anyone who read will be understood without any doubt.
But what's the issue here i don't get that ?
Is it the way I write those lines is wrong or is it the article which generally not accepted or reliable as a valid source of real information ?
Please let me know what the mistakes i did during the changes?
Because the changes I made is highly aligned with historical accuracy.
So if according to you the source should be more acceptable than 'factly.in' then i will definitely provide another valid article of reputable websites like The Hindu or The Indian Express which supports my changes. Callmehelper (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.
RP, could you take a look at these edits-[19]. The user SoloKnowHow83 has added this to the Khalistan movement page 3 times despite not having consensus to do so. He claims that I'm the one who's violating Wikipedia's rules and guidelines even though it's glaringly obvious that these edits undermine the neutrality of the page-notably by removing "militant" to describe the Punjab insurgency, and by labelling the movement as a "struggle" which imo, is clearly intended to elicit sympathy for the movement to readers. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
This is a historical article and it is heavily edited in last few days with unreliable sources like low quality newspaper articles and local publication books even sources are cited fraudulently to write something which is not present in the source itself. Specially, the Rajput and Mughal section is full of crap. Lack of attention by even established editors in reverting such poor addition has been degrading the quality of articles on English Wikipedia and it seems that like several websites floating on internet, Wikipedia is also backing pseudo-historic claims. Adamantine123 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Adamantine123: I'm not sure what I can do (not enough bandwidth for wikipedia right now). I've ECP-ed the article, that should help a bit and will make it easier for admins to take action if necessary. I see that Doug Weller has added a CT notice, that should also help. RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I can see that other editors have taken interest in that article. The section on Jats in that article was frivolous. Sources cited were not supporting what was written there. Anyways, LukeEmily was right in removing it altogether. Adamantine123 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Casteing aspersions
Regarding WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics, I see your point. I don't think I weighed the caste part of it enough. Though I struggle to find policy that actually supports this in particular; and I'm not sure we'd have the same reaction if someone made a comment about other caste's such as British upper-class. Incidentally, User:Valereee's closure statement of failing to vote when involved seem's backwards to me of societal standard practice, of not voting when one has a conflict of interest! Maybe that's just me. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not failing to !vote when involved that's the problem. !Vote or not, up to you. What I'm objecting to is failing to mention you're involved in the first place. Let the closer and other readers and other participants know you're involved at the topic or with the editor. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Not at all! Someone else pointed out it was poorly stated, so I tried to clarify! I appreciate having it pointed out. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nfitz: Thanks Valereee for clarifying the involvement part. Nfitz, it's a good idea to declare your involvement, if any (though, unlike some of the others commenting on that thread, you do have a broad range of interests on Wikipedia). Regarding the comment, if someone accused another editor of belonging to British nobility while editing articles on British nobility, that would definitely not be acceptable. WP:NPA is a core policy and is quite clear about this. In particular, WP:AVOIDYOU says "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people". Associating someone with a group (without evidence) is a form of personalization. Using that to accuse them of pushing a POV makes it a personal attack. RegentsPark (comment) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I just hadn't really thought of caste - particularly accusing someone of being of a higher caste - an attack. Though if involvment is all part of this, and caste is a factor, should people be declaring their caste? For the record, I'm generally from centuries of an English working-class background, though my parents and I were university-educated and have become middle-class. I'm now in Canada where caste is not the same kind of factor, except among some immigrant groups who are yet to leave the prejudices of their homeland behind. Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
You're not an involved editor so Valereee's comment was not directed at you. Unfortunately, Indian social groups are a battleground, and a big one at that (see WP:CASTE). RegentsPark (comment) 18:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether someone is a certain caste or not, and certainly no one should feel they need to declare it. What matters is if they've been involved in (and particularly if they've had disputes at) the CT topic in question and/or with the editor in question. If you've made hundreds of edits to articles about caste, or if you've had disagreements about caste with the editor in question, just post your !vote like this:
Oppose (involved). [Rationale for the oppose]
That allows the closer to know whether someone !voting is involved or not, and maybe take it into account. It doesn't mean a closer will discount involved !votes, but they have a better understanding of the overall picture. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Changes in Kingdom of Mysore and Gumbaz of Hyder Ali
sir u live somewhere far away in New York, i myself live her in Mysore Karnataka, so it's pretty sure that I know about Mysore and Tipu much better than you, I had made some minor corrections in that page and u re changed it without any knowledge about it, kindly don't change such things which u have no knowledge of Radiantsiraj (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Radiantsiraj: Hi. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and not on the common knowledge of individual editors. In other words, it is not a crowd sourced encyclopedia and, regardless of what you may or may not know, you should only add information that is properly cited. I'm dropping a welcome message on your talk page with links to our policies and procedures that will help you get an understanding of how to edit on Wikipedia. Best wishes. RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
the information is a sighted one with best of our knowledge, local knowledge is also important in order to improve the information on wikipedia Radiantsiraj (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Drastic impairment on Jat article * must be removed
Hey men so sorry to bother your but this time i got deliberative statement which i generally dont know how to figure this one out
Short subject:(Removed revision of User talk:DelphiLore
Hi man, i eagerly want to approch some intelligible and visionary editor for some information circled around the article based on Jats regime can you please try to remove the dubious statement more likely to be a Joke
I don't know which troll is editing this, but NO, Jats are NOT an "Iranian tribe".
Furthermore, there is practically nothing left of the Zutt people, those Indus pastoralists settled in 6th-11th century Iraq, so to imply that proper Jat clans live in modern Iraq is a lie! The most you can say is that there is still a district (Abu al-Khaseeb) named after them. But you should remember, as mentioned in the Zutt article itself, that Zutt was a generic exonym used by Arab chroniclers! Good luck trying to prove definitively that such-and-such Zutt is definitely a Jat. Heck, geneticists and historians argue that the Jats of Balochistan and Sindh aren't related to other Jats, so first focus on proving that!
Hi, it is regarding this IP range, some of whose edits you have reverted here. Apart from this and this (which were reverted), they have also added similar unsourced content over a period of time in this article which I've reverted. Likely a sock of User:Srimonbanik2007, which is obvious from these [20][21] stat related unsourced edits in the infobox, a characteristic of the sockfarm, apart from the Bengal centric edits. I'd like to request page protection on this article, ECP if possible, since they are known for quickly making random edits to get auto-confirmed rights as discussed here. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I've semi-protected the articles for 3 months. Will watch to see if a named sock arrives but there isn't enough evidence for ECP. You could file an SPI and ask for blocking that IP range if that's warranted. Let me know if there is further disruption. RegentsPark (comment) 12:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I suspect they will always link to a DAB page which I wrote & for which I always get pings (at a rate of 3-4/week, sigh). Now I know what to look for and who to notify... Narky Blert (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
