Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding Rajput-related articles and editing

RS6784, as you may have noticed I have over the past day responded to complaints and issues stemming from Rajput-related articles at various venues including my talkpage, ANEW, ANI, Talk:Rajput and Talk:Zamindars of Bihar. I am dropping this note to you (and other involved editors) in order to remind you all of the WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions applicable to this subject area, and since the edit-warring, grievance collection and tit-for-tat complaining that I have observed has become disruptive. Setting aside the questions of past interactions and who-is-more-to-blame for now, please try to model your individual editing (which you alone control!) in the future to be in line with wikipedia's content and conduct policies and best practices. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to any provocations. If the others cross the line, I will not respond them but I am well within the rights to ping you there to see it. Rest, I will follow the instructions as a mark of respect to you. RS6784 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has also disrupted and complete chganged [Ahir] and [Yadav] and related pages. Morever he has been constanly trying to add content without discussing with everyone. Please see edit history Ravibhooria (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC) blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
please don't come up with false accusations, I have only removed WP:RAJ references and added some proper referenced material with respect on Ahir, Yadav. Please don't engage into WP:Hounding. RS6784 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you have added text without any consensus Ravibhooria (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC) blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have objection with respect to content, you may take it up on talk page of the article, point it out. I have given the quotes for the same, you can put your counter perspective. Till now, I have just removed some WP:RAJ references, WP:HISTRS, or outright questionable references. And again I repeat please remember there is WP: Harassment, WP: FOLLOWING wrt dealing other editors. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your accounts seems continously to be single purpose account and you still carry out such dits without any consensus i will have to take it to ANI. Thanks Ravibhooria (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I haven't edited anything unreferenced, all of it is there, if you have any issue take it to the talk page of article. Rather than accusing me you should be better aware of WP: Hounding, and being a newly created account, the SPA applies on you more.RS6784 (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation link notification for May 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jaat

Hukum boht badhiya javab dete ho itihas choro ko ap. Ahir gujaro ki pol khol di apne badhiya par jaato ka bhi dekho kuch. Sabse jyada itihas inhone churaya hai. Tomar vans ko bi chura rahe hai. Inka bi pol kholo. jay matadi 🙏🏻 103.250.145.175 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines, I am a Jain from UP not the one you are thinking to be. I inform you again wikipedia is not for casual talk. RS6784 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by editor LRBurdak

You have nominated 4-5 articles created by user LRBurdak, two of which are deleted and others are under discussion. I searched for user's history and this editor created quite a lot of articles [1]. While some are notable, many specially articles related to Jat history which by the way are many are poorly sourced and seems to be not notable enough for wikipedia. Many articles are written as if it is Jatland.com which contains same articles with similar language. In my opinion all such articles are to be identified and nominated in combined manner, see WP:MULTIAFD. I think this will be far less laborious and will end this mess. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of such articles not only by one editor but new SPAs also coming up with similar articles having poorly or questionable references. RS6784 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mu'izz al-Din assasinators

Hello Akalanka820, I want to briefly discuss about your edit on Mu'izz ad-Din article. Here (though it was a year ago); you removed content which is backed by Sita Ram Goel citation, Special:MobileDiff/1059572900. I think that Goel was still a reputable historian of his time though a Hindutva zealot in his later life but still a academic author to be included with a tag of better source needed. However, I agree with you that his most likely assasinators were Khokkars a warlike tribe of Punjab, whom he thrashed brutually in his last campaign just prior to his assasination. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Packer&Tracker, this was discussed with one editor and was removed after it as other references were not backing it. It is more like a very fringe claim. I think this was way back. Yes he might have been killed by Khokhars but in Khokhars in Pakistan Punjab are not jat but of other community. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akalanka820: You are right indeed, many sources states that his killers were Khokhars of Punjab but none relates them with modern day Jats. Ram Lal Khokhar bit is entirely baseless though, he already slaughtered them in hughe number before his assasination. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 11:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Kitten for you

Packer&Tracker has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding ((subst:Kitten)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with ((subst:Kittynap)).

Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rape and other stuff on Rajput in Bihar

Hey, i realised after reading the article in one go that bombarding so many case studies regarding rape and sexual misconduct is not the correct way to write a caste related article. A summary may be sufficient for that. You may go through edits to remove the "case studies", you were talking about. I will create a more suitable article on that subject when get time. ThanksAdmantine123 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may move this comment of mine to talk page of that page. LukeEmily has also supported this view. Thanks and best wishes. Admantine123 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akalanka820, you can see she has put noping (not ping). Anyway, it is hard to follow multiple threads on multiple pages. @Admantine123:, please can we put all page content related discussions on the page itself?LukeEmily (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rajputs in Bihar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemantha (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stop harrassing me for one revert, the way you are doing it now. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment below modified by talk page owner, the strike is not mine. Hemantha (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that all the caste related issues need to be relegated to Caste violence in India is not policy based and stupid. There is also no necessity that something that's in one article should not be used in other articles. Your WP:BLUDGEONING of that talk page makes it completely impossible for any uninvolved editor to quickly understand things but there is simply no explanation for removing sourced content that you have thrice done now. Hemantha (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do you even read this thing on the talk page of article- here [[2]]. I was pinged to correct it in two three lines and there was no immediate issue raised. You haven't participated into discussion and is trying to revert. Are you doing it at the behest of others? I am just asking as this definitely raises questions. Please don't give "rude" edit summary when you never participate in discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is your own conduct that should be in question? You revert things which are under discussion and you never participated in any of the discussion till now. This you have done in the past as well on the same page in similar manner. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you haven't gone through the discussion, and you concluded what I have said there calling it stupid in a very "rude" manner. Please see your own conduct before questioning others. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemantha, Are you reverting this at the behest of others ? Here is the diff that does raises questions as I was engaged with them into discussion- [[3]] And FYI, nobody here is doing POV pushing, and let me make it clear I don't have much stake into it. So, avoid using "their community". Akalanka820 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able, at all, to discuss content and content alone? Stop pinging me when you make allegations based purely on your fantasies. Hemantha (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to act smart, you know I was pinged by the editors to correct it. I have shared the diff. I have discussed the content extensively on the talk page and it is me who took this case up. And do avoid calling others as stupid. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is better that you avoid rude way of giving edit summary, saying your argument is weak, laughable without participating in discussion tells more about you then others. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to this latest talk post of yours. except the two case study of individual village which can be explained on a better page is once again repeating without any policy basis, the argument that "this content belongs in some other article". We are all competent to see what you added. What is expected of you now is to read the objections I and LukeEmily raised in our reverts and replies and take it forward instead of repeating the same things ad nauseum. Read WP:STONEWALLING. Go back and edit your reply. Hemantha (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here for collaboration and willing to reach consensus then post on my talk page. Otherwise don't engage into harrassment here. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
regarding WP: STONEWALLING I don't want to say here but you should have immediately started off the discussion after reverting rather than giving rude edit summaries. Look at your own conduct. Regarding, policy please do read WP:RELNOT, what I could understand this is not direct page to depict and describe crime scenes as it is a caste page. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
individual village mistreatment case becomes sequence of criminal offences. The page is not directly dealing with it. I again repeat for the last don't try intimidation tactics with others. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last post about this unless you edit the latest reply of yours in the article talk to be substantially different from what you've already said a number of times before and show that you've taken into consideration the objections raised about that content. If you are unable to do so, stop editing anything controversial because WP:Competence is required. Hemantha (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained it in detail. It seems that you are not here for consensus but WP: Harrassment. Avoid for the last time and regarding competence, it is you who had issue with the edits, propose the changes on talk page of the article. Stick to the topic and don't engage into some kind of personal comments. You are not anyone to decide competence here.Akalanka820 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for categorisation of backward castes in Bihar

Dear, this article mentions survey conducted by officials in govt. of Bihar, which clearly mentions two distinct- OBC and EBC categories.[1] This article from prominent local newspaper clearly mentions distinct communities categorised into OBC and EBCs respectively.[2] This institute established by Govt. Of Bihar mentioned distinct quotas for OBC and EBC castes. [3] I think these are enough to establish constitutional status of backward castes in Bihar and there's no need to add "upper" prefix to backward castes if we have removed "upper" caste from previous sentence already. Regards. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please post this on talk page of article. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iamritwikaryan, Hi, I think a lot of reference are added on this page [[4]], so I am not sure on this. There is some form of ambiguity. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that those sources are wrong, these communities do form upper strata of backward castes but as it has been decided to not mention upper/lower term in the lead (they've removed "upper caste" from previous sentence too despite sources provided by me) I don't think that is required, "other backward castes" or OBC will work, we don't need to add "upper" prefix as sources provided by me states too. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so there is no perfect consensus on upper/lower addition, still it seems the discussion is going but informally a consensus is there like at the least in content we don't add it. There is a page on it, so for now IMO let it remain. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, either we should remove it altogether or I can also reinstate my sourced phrase which was deleted citing the same rule. We can't have different rules for same thing. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is only for lead content, I think please avoid it for now. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had also added that on lead only. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, as of now I will suggest you for no changes. Rest it is upto you but do always remember on this platform you are accountable for any of your edits, even I didn't knew this sometimes back. It is better if you go through some of the rules of Wikipedia and start understanding them. It might be helpful to you. You have already got some recent warnings, it is better to be careful. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Akalanka820 and Iamritwikaryan:, not spying on your chat :-) (but saw this while replying in another section), but humble request to both of you as well as @Admantine123:, these discussions about "upper backward" and "backward upper" or whatever it means is a little beyond my understanding sorry :-) - so I cannot contribute much without reading - but please can we have article related discussions on the talk page of the article itself so others can participate? Akalanka820, you pinged me multiple times on the Bihar Rajput page although my point was simple. Anyway, I will reply in a couple of days. Just wanted to let you know so you know I am not ignoring you.LukeEmily (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, you replied here but didn't when an editor had took your name on the talk page creating impression of consensus. Thanks. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily The matter has been settled, you don't need to waste your time on this. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

Hey , Wikipedia is a collaborative platform and i noticed that trust deficit makes things worst here. I remember some editors, who after getting engaged in edit dispute with me on one article tried to destroy other articles to which i significantly contributed. Fortunately they were blocked after I took the matter upto WP:AE. Its also true that i was not here for long and i do only sourced edits , but many a times due to later edits by other editors and bots linked page are removed and it appears that it's not sourced. The best way for such content is to "tag for citation needed" or if interested finding citation for it rather than merely contesting that someone has acted in bad faith. Recently i noticed your activities at Bihari Mauritians and you may have seen that another editor had removed some content on the same ground i mentioned above, but actually it was also sourced and they just assumed that it was some kind of pov-pushing to uplift social status of some castes. Anyways, i just wanted to say that i am writing an article and in that page you may find things that may appear "entirely new concept" to you. Like Kurmi being at top of caste hierarchy in a particular village, where a caste army first arrived to take on Dalits, they called Kurmi as Malik or Zamindar. I know there can be disipute on these things because of a contradictory view that " No, only 4 caste can do this, this can't be true of Kurmis" etc etc. So, if you have time , you may go through [5] _ Smouldering Dalit fire in Bihar whole chapter. This will make my day as lot of hard work is required to create an article and if on the basis of controversial and non- controversial content edit warring occurs, it comes as discouragement to editors like us. Will request to take it positively and don't use it anywhere else as this can't be a ground to get me sanctioned. Cheers :)Admantine123 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I couldn't understand what are you saying here? Now, what is the problem? Akalanka820 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123: Being the another editor you're referring to, I want to clarify that I had removed that content because the source was not added at the end of the sentence but at the end of the paragraph, which I had missed BUT the context with which it written was quite misleading as a title was linked to the article of an Indian community and the source was not quoted fully pretty conveniently and missed the only word which was fortunately added later by Akalanka820, hence, cleared any misconception. Your activities on the Pages of both Rajput and Rajputs in Bihar has been quite suspicious, (evident from the talk page itself, where you were caught misquoting or quoting selectively, with your old user-name). And I'd like to thank Akalanka820 for trying to make wikipedia a better place consistently and being unbiased. You are not supposed to accuse him of bludgeoning. Hope you give value to others' hardwork too.Iamritwikaryan (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhar's ethnicity

Hello Akalanka820; Since you regularly kept an eye on Khokhar article and did a great job at it, I want to draw your attention towards one topic. In this article as it stand, it states that Khokhars are a Muslim tribe which they indeed are, but Afaik there are Hindu Khokhars as well. Here is a reliable academic reference from Dr. Rima Hooja for the same:-

As far as historical facts go, however, it is well known that Muhammad of Ghor did not die until 1206, and that too not at the hands of Prithviraj III. Rather, he was assassisnated on 15 March 1206 at Damyak. The assassins, according to some sources, were Hindu Khokars, and according to others, Ismailis

A History of Rajasthan (2006, pp:-364)

Please, give a piece of advice on it, Cheers. Packer&Tracker (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At that time those Khokhars might have been Hindu, as far as I have read they converted in the year of 1200s-1300s but the point here is that Pak Punjab Khokhars are now Muslims and different group. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since, we are talking about Pak Punjab, this book on page 367 here

Nawabzada Zulfiqar Ali Khan Qizilbash (MNA, 1965) and an assortment of gentry landholders who sought to win by activating tribal (Khokhar Rajput and Arain) loyalties.

and 379 gives another perspective here [4], therefore my point is its all complex.Akalanka820 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Akalanka820

Thank you for creating Meghar Singh Sakarwar.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000:, thanks for appreciation. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "1". The Indian Express.
  2. ^ "2". Hindustan.
  3. ^ "3".
  4. ^ Jones, Philip Edward; Jones, Philip (2003). The Pakistan People's Party: Rise to Power. Oxford University Press. pp. 367, 379. ISBN 978-0-19-579966-8.
More