This is an archive of past discussions with User:TrangaBellam. 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.
Thank you for your interest in Tomb of Aegisthus and my GA Review. I have done some research and also after consulting an admin have decided that though I am unfamiliar with such a ref format for Ref #15 it is not against GA criteria. I therefore have gone ahead and reverted your edit - wanted you to know. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi TrangaBellam, I found both British and American spelling in the article, with British being dominant. For consistency I've used British spellings and have marked the article with {{Use Indian English}} because of the geographical area the article covers. I hope that's acceptable; feel free to change styles if you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab21:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Request to TrangaBellam and stop making Aryan valley look bad
Dear TrangaBellam,
Your edits on Aryan valley makes Aryan valley region looks extremely bad and you have added only the critisim about Aryan valley ,
Instead of treating Aryan valley as geographical region ,you have added the unnecessary and extremely baised and rude opinion about Aryan valley cited only those anthropologiest and unreliable news source like Mint who holds the negatives connotation regarding the people of Aryan valley . The Aryan valley articles is not only to write criticism , rather the true geographical aspects should be added there .
Please follow the neutral policy of wikepedia , though it is not always necessarily to add the Reliable source of it is extremely rude and against the neutral policy.
I hope you would stop making Aryan valley look bad by adding only about its critisim.
Correct it before it's too late .
Thank you. Minaro123 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't care if you want to peruse my edit history. It wouldn't matter if I did, so I hope you're enjoying the plumbing and the parade puppets.
But don't come argue with me on other people's talk pages, please. That was not at that point a complaint about you. I wanted to know why he said I shouldn't post in that 3RR section. I had specially told him that I wasn't looking for an argument there, just information. You are correct however that that discussion started as to whether extended-confirmed restrictions applied to the AfD. I am under the impression that it moved on from there, but possibly not in that venue. I assure you that Bbb23 doesn't care, not unless this goes to a drama board and he has to vote on it. If it were official and about you, I'd research whether what I said was exactly correct and possibly strike if there was a material error, but none of that is currently the case.
The next part might be hey post on my user page, but you you know what, here I am on yours. So question for you. How exactly would you describe what just happened with the Aryan Valley article? I would really like to know what you think you are doing.
As best I can determine, this is an ethnic dispute but I can't understand what it is exactly. Do you really feel that this region is best represented by an article about what's wrong with a name which while still used by Ladakh, was given by a government that doesn't exist any more? I would think that if a name is that wrong, it would be better to make it a redirect to the right name rather than make an article about how wrong it is. For example, Squaw Mountain is now a redirect to another name. (A squaw is a fairly derogatory term for an indigenous female in North America). I am sorry if you knew that, and hope I am not coming across as patronizing. If I am missing something please feel free to explain it to me. Elinruby (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't care if you want to peruse my edit history [..] But don't come argue with me on other people's talk pages, please. - I have interacted with Bbb23 and has his talk page watchlisted. That said, I have no intentions of following you around but you cannot misrepresent my comments on others' talk pages irrespective of context. The nature of your claims was severe enough to merit an interjection. If your particular allegation was appropriate, Minaro123's sanction ought to be vacated, and I warned for gaming, at the very least.
How exactly would you describe what just happened with the Aryan Valley article? - Nothing unusual happened with the article to deserve introspection. ARBIPA is a fraught zone, and editors are routinely sanctioned for using unreliable sources, misrepresenting sources, edit-warring, etc. We have articles on each of the four villages that constitute the region and cannot duplicate content.
As best I can determine, this is an ethnic dispute. - The Brokpas, who had been marginalized for long in precolonial and postcolonial India, latched onto the Aryan tag, so generously conferred by British and German ethnographers, to have a shot at upward mobility.[a] Successive governments — Hindu Nationalist or not — found this branding satisfying for geopolitical reasons and played their role in appropriating and popularizing the discourse. That's the nutshell version.
Do you really feel that this region is best represented by an article about what's wrong with a name [that] was given by a government that doesn't exist any more? - No government conferred the name "Aryan Valley"; it is limited to tourism discourse. Once again, I emphasize that we have standalone articles on all the four villages for storing geographical information and an article on the people for discussing their history.
Yes so you keep saying. What I am trying to figure out is why you keep saying it. Why is it so important to you that these particular villages not have articles? I really want to understand this. Elinruby (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't agree that they were "marginalized" by anybody. These 3000 Brokpa deliberately chose to go and live in a hard-to-reach corner of Ladakh and isolated themselves. They are 50,000 other Brokpa in India and an even greater number in Pakistan. They aren't particularly "marginalized". But they had to pay the price of getting integrated into the surrounding culture and thereby losing their distinctive identity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the 50,000 may be an underestmate too. Achinathang, for example, is a wholly Brokpa village according to Vohra, but it is fully Ladakhized and probably doesn't get counted in the 50,000. The whole of Kargil district is populated by Dards accoding to Francke. They are almost all Muslim now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
And the government may be trying to help them by combining them with the rest of the ethnicity by labelling them as "Brokpa, Drokpa, Dard and Shin". But these people are not interested. As far as they are concerned, they are the "pure Aryans" and the rest are fallen Aryans, even their brothers at Achinathang. Self-isolation and self-glorification can't be labelled as "marginalisation". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^Do note that their interpretation of "Aryan" is markedly different than what it means for White Supremacists etc. Obviously, that is a not a bar for the mythical German women!
Hamline University
@TrangaBellam. I left a couple of comments for you in the "Talk" page of Hamline University. You reversed some of the recent changes I did. I did not get an answer from you, so I am wondering if waiting is the best option or if reaching out here is the best place to have a chat. I do not do many wikipedia edits, so any advice on the best way to have this discussion is much welcome! IDruben77 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMO Levivich has a point. In the examples that involved me if it wasn't trolling it was sexual harassment, I did not like the way that interaction made me feel and it did effectively derail the conversation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fair enough; to avoid any misunderstandings, I suggest trying to include more details, including stuff that is not criticism, if it exists, in an initial article. If your initial edit looked like the one from few edits later, there would be no reason for me to drop that tag.
For that diff you refactored, may I suggest you consider striking out that final sentence too? TIA.
Hi TrangaBellam, time is flying past and I don't wish to hassle you – you are under no obligation. It's quite all right if you don't feel like doing this GAN review – your suggestion to use Andrea Jain was already very helpful, thank you. Just let me know if you'd like me to pop it back into the queue. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, if you feel constrained by my delays, please feel free to remove my name and throw the review open. If left to me, I will get to the review in this weekend. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I ask you to revert your changes to the state before your edits. Let's talk calmly on the talk page of the article about possible changes. I don't consider all the changes made by you as bad. But you ignored the ongoing discussion, where we were moving towards a compromise on some points. Let's take WP:CUPOFTEA and discuss them calmly. Please WP:Assume good faith, I will also do my best. Marcelus (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi TrangaBellam, I've found many of the review quotations in the "Works and reception" section were inaccurately used; I've checked sources where possible and corrected many of these poorly done quotations but it's possible some inaccuracies may remain, and it may be wise to check other citations too. Gushing praise in reviews seems to frequently be a sign of this problem. I've also noted a couple of missing citations with [citation needed] tags. Good luck with the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab05:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
AE result
This is to let you know that I've closed the AE request about you. Of the evidence that related to you, some showed a pattern of edit warring and an unnecessarily combative approach to talk page discussions. While this does not rise to the level of requiring a formal sanction, I will be logging a warning as a record that this conduct has been discussed. My hope is that that is the end of the matter, but note that similar conduct comes to admins' attention in the future, it is very likely to result in a formal sanction. As a logged warning, this is appealable in accordance with the appeal procedure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Damn - If I had made a program choose from a list of 500 diffs and attribute violations of wiki-policies at random, it would have come up with something better. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TrangaBellam. I hope this is within the scope of permitted comments due to current AE discussions, and I have no horse in this race except for the high quality of related articles, so just sending a note that I appreciate your work in these difficult topics. Although my involvement is filtered primarily through the lens of art history (visual cultures of Stalinist Poland and in its aftermath, to be more specific), I am very aware of the historiographical challenges that come with the territory. Ppt91talk20:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no particular expertise in your area but you appear to work in an understudied (?) domain, which is perhaps all the more exiciting? I have come across little decent work which is exclusively focused on the visual culture in Stalinist USSR which is in sharp contrast to the heavy scholarly interest in the early avant-garde.... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam Absolutely. And yes, it's still very much understudied, primarily because the Cold War dichotomy of modernism-good/Socialist Realism-bad has made a lasting impact on scholarship. For now, I am trying to expand the existing biographies on en-wiki of some Eastern European avant-garde artists to cast more light on that period and hopefully move on to the actual Socialist Realism articles in due time. But please do feel free to keep me posted on your projects. Always happy to participate in engaging discussions related to the region. Ppt91talk16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You and Elinruby are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other. Please read WP:IBAN to see exactly what an interaction ban entails. Note that the ban applies to the whole of Wikipedia, even though it is described and logged as particularly relevant to Eastern Europe. Providing evidence in the current "History of Jews in Poland" arb case is an exemption from this ban; you may each provide evidence about the other there if you should wish.
You have been sanctioned in order to relieve both of you from unconstructive interaction, where both complain of harassment by the other, and to relieve other people from being distressed and interrupted by it.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice: The ban exemption to allow engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution at the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is suspended until further notice. Outside of reporting a violation of this topic ban you should not directly or indirectly mention Elinruby; this includes talking about each other on an admin's talk page. Violations of this topic ban will result in escalating blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Are you talking about my I-ban, Barkeep49? Because I specified an exemption to it, as you have perhaps seen immediately above: TrangaBellam and Elinruby may discuss each other on the evidence page of the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case. I did that because Elinruby had already started submitting evidence about TB when I placed the ban, and it would be awkward to stop them in the middle, or to prevent TB from replying. Is this ArbCom rephrasing/altering my I-ban (without informing me)? I frankly find the negatives a little hard to follow (The ban exemption... is suspended). Bishonen | tålk21:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC).
Yes I am @Bishonen and I had seen that. That is what has been suspended. This was always intended as a temporary measure while we discussed how we wanted to handle the discussion at the case page. I think we are close to consensus about what we want to do but it being the weekend I am going to give it a bit more time for people to weigh in. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You know something, Barkeep49? I think it's quite disrespectful to inform the two users but not me, not even in the form of a ping. I only saw it by accident. Under the circumstances, I suggest the committee takes over these bans. I'd rather not try to enforce them or follow them up while ArbCom tinkers with them. Bishonen | tålk22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC).
Ppt91 has given you a ferret! Ferrets promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a ferret, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Give someone a ferret by adding {{subst:Ferret}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I thought I had done this already, but am now realizing it saved as a draft... Here's a ferret for your merit. :-) Ppt91talk14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Decorum during the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case
TrangaBellam, you are allowed to participate normally at the case (e.g. you can submit about Elinruby). However, you should read the expectations for participating in the analysis or evidence phases. In particular you are encouraged to keep the following in mind:
Expected standards of behavior
You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Barkeep49 So, are you withdrawing your modification of Bishonen's sanction? I am afraid that I find your approach unclear.For example, ER, who is a third party with no participation in the topic area alongside me, accuses me of assuming bad faith towards another editor in a discussion. That editor came to your t/p to reject such a characterization but you claimed that such denials can only be made after the "evidence is summarized". Evidently, you believe that the "evidence phase" is an "accusations phase" which runs against the dictum that "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence." If you plan to accept and summarize such blatantly unreasonable "evidence", I do not see why I shall participate in the case and legitimize a bureaucratic farce. And I am not making a fuss about a single diff. In another case, my use of "ce" (copyedit) as an edit summary has been criticized as some kind of misbehaviour. I can go on. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
While I was unclear in my wording, I never actually modified Bishonen's sanction. I instead applied a suspension of it with-in arbspace. That suspension has been withdrawn and so you and ER are able to participate fully in the case. You can read about the expectations around that in the notice ToBeFree left you. As of this moment, none of ER's evidence about you has been summarized and frankly I don't know how it will be summarized. I am hoping to do some work summarizing things, though ER's evidence isn't my top priority and I'm an hour in to doing wiki stuff and haven't begun yet which is also what happened yesterday so I don't know what will get done. Your placing of that writing in the analysis page does fit with expected standards of behavior, yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
View on this please
Sorry to bother you TrangaBellam but recently I noticed an edit on Gilgit by user Pbeditwiki 3 year old account and only made 20 edits however this edit :[1] seems to be motivated by a healthy dose of point of view pushing the edit summary more or less reveals the motives it based entirely on a Indian book and also this one [2] the first source is Indian and just attempts to push one narrative the second source also is not verifiable. As you may have noticed topics and articles on princely states and there accession such as Khanate of Kalat now Gilgit tends to attract editors from India etc pushing a certain view point. The user is also trying to make an edit on Jammu Massacres to try and downplay the massacre.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could check it out briefly I don't think such a large quote and copy edit from a Indian source deserves a place on an article about Gilgit the page on the 1947 Kashmir war is where it belongs. Kind regards. Sensai7 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Copy
Good day TrangaBellam ! I hope you are doing fine - Could you please help me get a copy of Professor Sunil Kumar's work - The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate, 1192-1286; (2007); pp no:- 81-137
Hi TrangaBellam, I didn't do much work within the images table because the text there seems fine. Some of the English in the article was a bit confused so you may wish to check I haven't misinterpreted anything. Cheers, Baffle☿gab02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Salvatore Babones".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Kerala Story, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Haha - I was pointed to this treasure trove, about a couple of years ago, by Ghamari-Tabrizi. I was searching for some rare journal issue and then, came to know that it was neatly digitized! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.
If you can’t do the same thing with same type of film’s article. Then how can you remove that line from The Kerala Story? It was well sourced by 3 big reliable sources. Grabup (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You need not ping me at my t/p. Dramas are inherenntly fictional and we call out Sen's shenanigans in portraying a drama as a docudrama in no uncertain terms. TKF is an outlier; you need to cite a site-wide precedent. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you think The Kashmir Files is an outlier? The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story are the same kinds of drama movies. Why can't you remove the same line from The Kashmir File? If you are right then you should go to The Kashmir Files article and remove the line "The film presents a fictional storyline" which is similar to what you removed in The Kerala Story's article. Grabup (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent reply to my proposition seem to sound like uncalled for microaggression.
Stupid. ?? Is this a policy based explanation? You seems to have reservations against incumbent government, Are you presuming that calling the Sengol installed in parliament as 1947-Sengol is favorable to incumbent government some how? I just proposed thinking that to be neutral; you can all the way find policy based faults in it, support status quo or support something else, using words like 'stupid' seems all the way uncalled for.
.. Sengol tradition in Chola spans, as has been claimed by the incumbent government in India? ..
Did I comment anywhere in my proposition about Chola and claims of incumbent government? Are you doing uncalled for presumptions? When and which governments to support or not is every ones own individual prerogatives and need not be presumed. At least not in the case of users like me who follow reasonable editorial neutrality.
Whether historical things do not exist irrespective of whichever governments are in the power? Can any one not create draft / sandbox and update with available RS on the respective page?
My title renaming suggestion on article t/p rather distances from historical Sengol at least to some extent which present title does not is my perception, you may very well have different perception. But above cited advance speculative presumption seems uncalled for.
.. Btw, I am glad that you have changed your atrocious signature. .. This is the untimely and uncalled for microaggression which has made me most annoyed.
Whether an article talk page is space to talk about my user signature? Only problem with my signature was it's lengths and I reduced shortened it long time back on good faith advice of other users. And what all you are calling atrocious was all the way was just good faith description of good encyclopedic value. You call it atrocious that too at t/p of a contentious article talk page in untimely manner?
I am quite annoyed with this and look forward to WP:AGF and positive WP:REFACTOR at your earliest.
(1) Do a strawpoll. 1947-Sengol as the name of the object is just bizarre and, might I say, stupid.
(2) I was actually keen to know if you found sources to the effect? See the last thread on the t/p, where I document sources which claim the non-existence of such a tradition in Chola spans. No bad faith was involved.
1a) Bizarre or stupid, neither of the word seem to make linguistic or WP policy explanation. Idk some one like you good at language expertise and adequate Wikipedia expertise can't go beyond unhelpful shortcut words. At this moment I leave at that.
1b) My basic concern is clear from section heading "Article title naming and scope mismatch" and "Short description|Symbolic sceptre in Indian history"
"About|a gold sceptre installed in the Parliament of India.."
It would help if you can help with inputs on basic concern. Alternatively we can seek more opinions with RfC to decide if one of them can be dropped from the scope. Of course I will take this @ article t/p.
2) On historical Sengol, I am not focused on ongoing controversy of Chola-Govt-Parliament. In South India historical Sengol seem to begin from non-religious Sangam era mentions. Nayakas seem to have their own tradition. Karnataka seem to have had their own traditions. Whole research and making article will take time. What I suggest is let us see beyond on going political polarization and focus on what best encyclopedic information with RS we can provide.
3) Thanks for refactoring.
Just for record and info of uninitiated my previous signature used to include words 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' did not contain any bad words or bad intention, shortened before some months to mere Bookku due to concerns over length of the signature.
@TrangaBellam as such I respect you for being fairly geek in lot many WP policies rather also learn few from your advice time to time. This is not to say you have broken any guidelines relating WP:CTOP and WP:ARBIP, but remaining alerted may help to avoid heat of moment editing situations. Wish you happy editing and cheers. Bookku (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted your edits to Jayen466's post. If you object, comment below, don't delete what they wrote. See WP:TPO for more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}17:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you jobless? Like, go write an article.
The review by Jeffrey Herf was added by Andreas because I had created a stray sub-section on him, with no comment whatsoever, which I have since removed. Nobody, much less me/Andreas, is challenging Herf's reliability. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request
Hi TrangaBellam,
I am reaching out to you in good faith to request you to reduce the aggressive stance you have towards me. Our discussion at EFN possibly derailed from the point you responded to me aggressively.[3][4] Some points I wanted to document in my request:
While I thank Novem Linguae for pointing out your personal attack,[5][6] and Abecedare for calming things down, I do thank you for striking part of your attack in good faith subsequently. It would have been good if we could have initially itself just discussed congenially than derail the discussion from the point go.
After I posted my message on the EF noticeboard, you wrote on your talk page, "New week, new idiots. See the discussion."[7] This again was a direct personal attack on me. After about 9 hours, you changed the term "idiot" to "idiocy".[8] Both the initial "idiot" word and "idiocy" words were uncalled for.
Your current talk page is replete with comments from editors such as Bookku, ScottishFinnishRadish, Headbomb requesting you to change your track. I have not reviewed the history of your talk page, but if there are similar requests from others, it might be prudent to ponder on your aggression. You have significant editing experience and it would be lovely to interact with you, were you to have a more friendly way of interacting. I reiterate, I write in good faith and hope this is not how we interact in the future. Thank you, Lourdes06:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you TrangaBellam for taking upon the task to get it removed from the spam blacklist, while lots of us couldn't see it thru to the end. I know the ride was bumpy with conflicts and confrontations, but I do hope in the good for all it's worth it. Thanks again!
I will assume good faith about this edit of yours when you labeled a bunch of edits, including mines, as "unhelpful" while i just made some minor edits that were quite legit as far as i can see. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)02:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, you need to return to this GA nomination and finish your work right away if you don't wish it closed for lack of action. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, not sure if you saw, but there's note on the userpage saying the user is going to be largely inactive until Nov 2024, so I suspect his return is unlikely. ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
All those (trivial) changes were optional for a GA pass. I will incorporate them once I have more than a few minutes to spend. The nomination can perhaps be closed as a successful one. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Nezak Huns you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nezak Huns for comments about the article, and Talk:Nezak Huns/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The editor in question created a new section called "Copyedits" between two old threads — contrary to the rule that new threads go at the bottom — and cited it in support of his edits! Ofcourse, the strategic placement of the thread was an obfuscatory tactic and it ensured nobody noticed it till I did, yesterday, as evidenced by the total lack of engagement. All of that too missed you, despite my explicit note? I can understand if somebody creates a new t/p thread at the top of existing ones (many web-forums have such a rule; AGF) but why will one create a new thread in between two older ones?
A bunch of new editors — with less than five hundred edits, each (Jagmanst - 3m, 552 edits; Anirudhgiri - 3y, 94 edits; Rogeryg - 4m, 471 edits) — sneaked in vast changes to a longstanding version while both me and Tayi were away. This is routine POV pushing, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
For an interesting example, Tayi — in what was his last edit — explained why "Golden Walking Stick" was a result of the so-called "fog of war" and hence, may not be used in our article. The opposing editor agreed and the discussion came to conclusion; till date, not the slightest of discussion has taken place on the topic in that thread or elsewhere. Yet, somebody sneaked it back in the article in the intervening month and here, you are warning me. Please go ahead but silence does not override explicit consensus esp. when it involves longstanding editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, Jagmanst wishes to restore a particular version but is unwilling to take responsibility for the content in it, arguing that the relevant content was added/removed by someone else before he edited the article. Is such a behavior allowable? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, my concern(s) are purely behavioral and definitely not limited to your behavior, not even focused on it. Most of the "warning" at ANEW, hopefully apparent when reading the discussion there and checking the timestamp of the "Warned" closure, is towards Jagmanst whose report I have effectively declined because there are many other options still available. Perhaps the best of them would be starting an RfC.
I do have to reject the accusation regarding an alleged (bad-faith) "strategic placement" of a new thread as "an obvuscatory tactic". That's far-fetched especially when attributed to someone with about 500 edits and a clear lack of experience with dispute resolution in general. I also won't judge the content, all I'm trying to prevent is the unproductive short-term edit warring that is still happening today.
Most of the conduct argumentation so far seems to boil down to "there are two infallibly neutral editors experienced enough to properly edit the article, and they're currently overwhelmed with keeping all the non-neutral newbies away, so I have to revert them on sight when I have the time to do so, and WP:ONUS allows me to do so without finding a consensus". And that's wrong.
Looking at Talk:Sengol, I see "Latest comment: 2 days ago"; looking at Special:PageHistory/Sengol, I see two reverts from less than 24 hours ago. As there is no urgency in finding a consensus, thanks for self-reverting for now. I am aware that this may result in a non-optimal revision being displayed to readers for a while, but it's not a biography of a living person and Wikipedia sometimes works this way.
(btw top two threads in the talk page were created mine. I didn't sneak in copyediting section in between two threeads). Jagmanst (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Ramakrishna is not classifiable in the same category; he has been the subject of dozens of monographs published by academic press. I do not know much about Tarapith but it ought to have coverage in RS. As to the rest, I will take a look. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Alright @TrangaBellam:! I knew Ramakrishna's article has good quality of academic sources, still I just wanted to check with you once. I would request kindly check Tarapith carefully the article mainly relying on one or two primary sources no secondary source has been provided. Another saints/guru's article Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, and Disciples of Ramakrishna. In each of the individual Disciples of Ramakrishna article I'm pretty sure not all are provided good quality sources and they also need thorough review. Slowly we also need to take some article to AFD, not now, first the cleaning needs to be done. Thanks--Glcris (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, @TrangaBellam: you recently reverted the military conflicts of Pratapaditya, i restored the conflict articles again. Please make sure that the battles are really fake and shouldn't be on wikipedia and then remove after checking the sources i can provide each sources snippets to clear out the topic. Raged Bengali Wiki (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Tranga, I hope that you are not too occupied with other tasks to take a look at this request. I wanted you to take a look at this article, which I believe is problematic in many way as it romanticises a legendary folklore as history. I am not too familiar with processes of removing problematic information appropriately but have noticed that are quite active with solving a lot of these issues pertaining to India-related articles. I would like to see what you think, as majority of the information is not from reliable sources at all. It seems to be a way of presenting legends in the guise of a reliable historical article and it bugs me because I know this is the case but it's not easy for me to make that clear to those who are not familiar with the romanticisation of historical conflicts in India. I don't know where a lot that which is mentioned in the article is actually from. I would appreciate your taking a look at this but if you are too occupied, then please remove this message as a heads up so I know to ask elsewhere. Thank you. Muydivertido (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to do that, but am not experienced with stubbing and wouldn't want my attempt to be confused by more experienced users as vandalism or removal of content. Please look into it if you have time, thanks. Muydivertido (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
History of Mizoram GA nomination
I contributed enough to nominate the History of Mizoram article (or atleast I think so). Can you tell me anything majorly wrong with the article in discussion that caused it to be reverted, I don't think you are supposed to even revert it. Instead i think you are supposed to review it and give it a failure and explain why. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
