User talk:Utcursch/archive/45

Archives: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

---

Working on article on Durga puja

Greetings! I have been working on the article on Durga Puja for the past few days. It would be of great help if you could provide with respective inputs to improve the article. --Tamravidhir (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Tirthankara

Template:Infobox Tirthankara Hi, I just translated the template probably created by User:जैन on Hindi Wikipedia in English. As current template is not accurate enough for Tirthankara articles. It's here : Template:Infobox Tirthankara. Please review it and eliminate possible mistakes in it. Thank you Rishabh.rsd (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK Harshat Mata Temple?

Hallo, Thank you for expanding and editing the Harshat Mata Temple article. Do you think you could nominate it for a WP:DYKNA? It would be nice to build up the Chand Baori article as well. Gryffindor (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: I just removed the stub tag from the article, and it seems to meet the DYK criteria of 'New' and 'Long Enough'. Some sentences are unsourced, but we can find sources for them (or replace them). Do you have a hook in mind? utcursch | talk 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "dyk the Harshat Mata Temple is located next to the Chand Baori in the village of Abhaneri, Rajasthan?" or "it is theorized that it was constructed under the rule of the Chahamanas of Shakambhari?" or something like that? Gryffindor (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The reviewers generally ask for something more interesting. I'll try to come up with something. Maybe "DYK ... is more than a thousand years old?" utcursch | talk 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just don't wait too long, otherwise the period of submission will be over. Gryffindor (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here: Template:Did you know nominations/Harshat Mata Temple. utcursch | talk 18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harshat Mata Temple

Hello! Your submission of Harshat Mata Temple at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MX (✉ • ✎) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Return of Sock

Hi. Please take a look at recent edits to Sita page and Udit Narayan page. Sock of User:Ua7r seems to be back. Thanks.— Jakichandan (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been blocked by @Bbb23:, however multiple IPs and few just created accounts are still making similar edits on Sita page. WP:DUCK is likely. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Utcursch. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Harshat Mata Temple.
Message added 01:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Muslim Rajputs

Hi, a user on Muslim Rajputs is adding Pakistan to the lead over India even though 90% of sources mention India alone. Please take a look if you have time sir. Thanks.213.205.240.2 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harshat Mata Temple

Hello Utcursch, and thank you for nominating Harshat Mata Temple. The nomination was reviewed earlier this month, and some issues need to be addressed before the nomination has been approved. However, there has been no response from you since then, despite an earlier ping. Are you still interested in pursuing the nomination and resolving the reviewer's concerns? If yes, a prompt response would be appreciated, otherwise the nomination may be marked for closure as abandoned if no replies are given within a reasonable timeframe. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mahabharata

Hi, please take a look at this Mahabharata page, it's been a victim of often number of edits in past few days. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Utcursch I would like to clarify the issue regarding Mahabharata page raised by HinduKshatrana since I am the editor who made a few edits on the page today (not before).

There are different versions related to the participation of the warrior Karna in the contest that was conducted in the self-choice ceremony of Draupadi in the canonical texts of Hindu mythological epic Mahabharata.

One popular version states, Karna was rejected by Draupadi. Other version states there was no rejection( he failed at the contest along with others). Reference to the failure version has been provided in Arjuna wiki as well (Reference no. 8). The Critical Edition of Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute has identified the former version (rejection) as a later interpolation into the text of the epic. Before today, only the rejection version was mentioned in Mahabharata wiki page. I thought it is only fair to mention both variations of an important incident.

This is why, today, I reworded the part "Marriage to Draupadi" in Mahabharata wiki page and added both variations of the incident (rejection and no-rejection) along with references to a blog article explaining the variations in detail and link to official website of [Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute]. However, user HinduKshatrana reverted back my edits multiple times citing my sources and info as unreliable.

I genuinely appreciate HinduKshatrana's concern about vandalism. However, reverting back sourced information can be done with some caution. Please help us resolve this issue peacefully. All I want is for readers of Wiki to know both variations of the incident from canonical sources, and not just one (rejection).

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

I'm glad to see this editor here, but I don't see how [1] Ref 8is a reliable source for the bit about interpolation. I reverted User:Panchalidraupadi as neither the Sanskrit version in ref 8 nor the blog they used are reliable texts. However, the Critical Edition mentioned may well be. I agree with the intention, just not the method or sources. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:

Thank you Doug for texting me here.

I'd iterate what I said in your talk page. The current content in the Synopsis of the Mahabharata page is outdated, and needs to be corrected. But going by Wiki policies, it is becoming difficult to do so. This is because, the Critical Edition of Mahabharata is available in public domain only in Sanskrit at this point, not in English. The link privided to the Sanskrit Mahabharata in my edits was precisely the link to that scene from Sanskrit Critical Edition (CE). And some of the research papers related to CE are available in https://archives.org in pdf format.

Below, I have provided citation from an academic paper named "Interpolations from the Mahabharata" by M.A. Mehendale. It is a paper published in the journal "Annals of BORI" of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. You can scroll down and read about Draupadi's svayamvara in the free text. It explains that the popular sequence of Draupadi objecting to marry Karna (spelled as Kama in the text format) has been identified as later addition. Link: https://archive.org/stream/InterpolationsInTheMahabharata/INTERPOLATIONS%20In%20The%20Mahabharata_djvu.txt (There are a few spelling mistakes, and mixing of Footnotes with the running text in the free text format, but the pdf format of the paper has everything right.)

Please clarify if this qualifies as an academic source.

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

@Panchalidraupadi: Please continue this discussion on Talk:Mahabharata. M. A. Mehendale's Interpolations in the Mahabharata is an acceptable source. When in doubt about a source's reliability, you can initiate a discussion at WP:RSN. utcursch | talk 18:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Thank you very much for your reply, and clarifying the authenticity of the source.

 @Doug Weller: Please see above. I might need yours or any other admin's intervention to add my edits with the acceptable sources in Mahabharata page, in case any user reverts my changes.

For any further discussion, we may communicate on Talk:Mahabharata.

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

DYK nomination of Harshat Mata Temple

Hello! Your submission of Harshat Mata Temple at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Utcursch, please stop by at the nomination as soon as possible. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Harshat Mata Temple

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Chitragupt Kayastha

Greetings. Thanks for showing interest. Discussion on talk page may be initiated before doing unilateral edits to the main page. Hope you take it in the right spirit. Yours Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. utcursch | talk 22:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits of Kayastha

Hello Utcursch. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Utcursch reported by User:Nikhil Srivastava (Result: ). The other party does not seem to have notified you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Utcursch: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks, and same to you! utcursch | talk 17:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Utcursch,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks and same to you! utcursch | talk 14:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Utcursch!

Happy New Year!

Utcursch,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Same to you! utcursch | talk 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

AFC Review

Hello, Utcursch! I have created a page named Draft:B. K. Misra, could you please review it? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone else is reviewing it, but I will take a look as well. utcursch | talk 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Utcursch! Any help would be highly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Utcursch, eagerly waiting to hear from you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vm1207: I agree with Espresso Addict's comments. I'd recommend formatting bare URLs using {{cite news}} template. Also, the "currently the head of Neurosurgery at Hinduja Hospitals" sentence doesn't need so many citations. See WP:CITEOVERKILL. The subject seems notable enough -- once you address these issues, the article is bound to get approved for creation. utcursch | talk 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Utcursch for the valuable feedback. Could you please help me with that? Also, this might sound stupid but how do you we use a single source in multiple places? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs)

@Vm1207: You can use refill tool to format the bare URLs. See this edit on how to use a single source in multiple places. utcursch | talk 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries such as "fixed typo"

You left me a message on my talk page, i read it. Thank you sir for your parenting & advice. About fixed typo problem i want to tell you respectfully it is an option in Wikipedia so i choose it many times, so this is not a misleading. In Wikipedia i am a new Wikipedian so i don't know everything about it. I giving my small contributions with learning basis in Wikipedia from my knowledge. When any lesion or matter i read & listening from teachers & other valuable peoples of society i provide to others & also in Wikipedia. I am a truth loving nature person so i don't do any fraud activities. &...

• Anjana Om Kashyaps page...

In Anjana Om Kashyap's page i done small edits about her Social knowledge. I do this because i am also from Ranchi & currently living in Ranchi. When i was a child, she was young. She was a student of Missionary School. I known her & her family well. That's reason i made some edits. Sir i request you please give me your love and parenting. Thanks. Ps.prashantsingh16 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who dropped a note about your edits to Anjana Om Kashyap, but please have a look at WP:V - you must cite a reliable source when adding / changing content to a Wikipedia article. utcursch | talk 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

About Nau Nihal Singh

Hello i Saw Thatcher you deleted my notes about Nau Nihal Singh.

He s my gran gran gran gran pa. Now we must show the truth about his stillborn son. Could i show you? CAN we tale about this?

Princesse Angelica Princesse Angelica (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Princesse Angelica: Anyone could claim that they are descendant of a royal family. Wikipedia requires a reliable source for such claims - family traditions are not acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 18:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, could you please ask this question to the historien man called Lafon. He Knows all about our family. What about your publication you tome me that or must be the truth. But it wasnt.before your affirmation you must clarify your story not with the bad information. Could we call Together ? Princess Angelica Princesse Angelica (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Princesse Angelica: Please see WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. If historian Lafon has published an article supporting these claims in a peer-reviewed journal or a book by a reputed publisher, these claims can be included in the article. "Clarifying" these claims over a call or talking to a historian are of no use here. utcursch | talk 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi , thanks for your regards i Saw the Wikipedia guidelines. we must clarify the story With the truth about This point. This guideline doesnt permit to clarify This point cause it Will be suppose that the Wikipedia reader could have proof and evidence that it s writting... but he wasnt historian or scientist to study this period. He just read books that s all. Not a lot of books only one of them written to arrange the crown s story.you know that we can have many reputed publisher with a false stories. Please try to get new evidence in order to tell the truth of this story cause you are thé writter of this article. I know you would like to tell the truth...find it for sikh people. Try and find you can do that. I can show you some evidence. Do you want my adress? Could we tell together? Please i need your help to show the truth thru the would. We ve got so many persecutions to stop them now. Best regards Princess Angelica Princesse Angelica (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not the writer of this article, or of Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. The Wikipedia articles, policies, and guidelines are written collaboratively by the Wikipedia community.

Even if you were able to convince me that you are descended from Nau Nihal Singh, other Wikipedia editors will not accept your claim unless it is published in a source that meets WP:RS standards.

If you want to propose a change to these policies and guidelines, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. utcursch | talk 16:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahluwalia (caste)

utcursh how to send you facts regarding the ahluwalia caste.The royal family called themselves JATKALAL in all documents you can check on wiki.Ahluwalias are mixture of jatkalal thats why itself is a caste Jatkalal.kindly type jatkalal on google and you can find documents regarding it.thanks kindly update the page with real information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:23bd:bff0:71d3:6e48:fda9:b9b0 (talk • contribs)

You don't need to send any information to me. You just need to cite reliable sources for the content you are adding. A Google search for "Jatkalal" throws up instagram posts etc. which are not acceptable sources. Also, please do not remove existing sourced content from the article. utcursch | talk 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Utcursch, you are requested to learn more in depth about all Ahluwalia misl gotras before editing wikipedia page. There are approximately 60 gotras using Ahluwalia as their title and all of them are not Kalals/ outcaste. Kindly also refer to books like: The Golden book of India by author Sir.Roper Lethbridge page.233 on Kapurthala, Advanced History of the Punjab: Ranjit Singh and post Ranjit Singh period by author G.S.Chhabra, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia by author Ganda Singh and Sikhs in the Eighteenth Century: Their Struggle for Survival and Supremacy by author Surjit Singh Gandhi to understand the ancestry of respected Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia as Jat kalal, as mentioned in the above books or sources. GurSikh123 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add these books as citations; see Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. utcursch | talk 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Utcursch a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 01:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating Prakash Vir Shastri in Tyagi

Greetings Utkarsh,

Can u check the wikipedia page of Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri which clearly states fathers name of Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri as Dalip Sinh Tyagi. Wikipedia is not letting me add Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri to Tyagi page on wikipedia.

Pleas let me know if u have any questions.

Thanks, Aman Tyagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagiaman (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tyagiaman: The "Notable people" section on the page Tyagi lists people whose name includes Tyagi, not people whose parents' name was Tyagi. "Prakash Vir Shastri" doesn't belong on that page unless "Tyagi" is a part of his name. utcursch | talk 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Utkarsh - Page Tyagi should be about people who belong to Tyagi caste that is those who r Tyagi. Page should not be about people who have Tyagi as a surname. Can u or somebody share y would u create a page about Tyagi surname which is a subset of Tyagi caste which is a superset? To explain to u according to an analogy, if u r talking about Kayastha caste, u dont talk about Saxena, Bhatnagar, Srivaastav, Mathur separately. They all come under Kayastha caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagiaman (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, just to let u know 'Shastri' is titular for those who have studied Shaastr (ancient books) or those who have studied Sanskrit. In Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri's case u can check it was because of knowledge of Sanskrit. Even Mr. Lal Krishn Advani honored Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri for Mr. Shastri's contribution to Hindi by naming the road leading to Rashtrapati Bhavan as Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue. Also, the village that Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri belongs to, its name is Rehra which is village of Tyagi's. Hope u hav the capability to deduce inferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagiaman (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tyagiaman: Feel free to create a new page called Tyagi (caste), citing reliable sources. However, if you want to list Prakash Vir Shastri as a member of the Tyagi caste on that page, you must find a source that explicitly supports that assertion, in accordance with WP:V policy. Arguing that his father's surname was Tyagi or that he comes from a village of Tyagis (another unsourced assertion) won't help: see WP:NOR. Also have a look at these past discussions: 1, 2. utcursch | talk 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Utkarsh - Well, i can create a new page that lists Tyagis as a sub-caste of Brahmins but how does one find a gazette that lists something like this. Maybe there is some book that mentions so but i am not sure if i can find an elektronik copy of that book. Similarly, in my knowledge there is no document that lists that this particular village belongs to Tyagis or Aheers or Gurjars. These are things that people just know because they know that village is occupied by which caste. R u not familiar with India? If one's ancestry is Tyagi they will be Tyagis. It is not a religion that one can change, and then ur objection to adding so would b understandable. Basic things i have to explain to u all, using up so much of my time. Y cant my edit b reviewed by somebody who understands India? I am not abel to understand ur hesitation with changing Tyagi to a sub-caste instead of surname as well as adding Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri ji to Tyagi page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagiaman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is non-negotiable. If you haven't gone through WP:TUTORIAL already, please do.

As for sources, you can find plenty on Google Books and Google Scholar. utcursch | talk 03:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Fastest response I've ever had for a vandal! I appreciate it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Utcursch/archive. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Anangpal Tomar Comment

Sir, I'm unable to verify the source added in the recent change here. Would you kindly check that? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention Anangpal at all. The caste identity doesn't belong in the lead anyway. I've undid the changes, and dropped a note on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion at Sandesh

Hello, I saw you reverted back to the IP version which is a block evasion. The IP indeed added an offline source without any quotation but how reliable is it to assume good faith and trust their edits where there is a massive possibility of source falsification given the behavioral history of its master editor and their socks? Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: The link that you restored doesn't mention Bangladesh at all. The The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets mentions the word "Bengali". If your problem is with the word "Indian subcontinent", feel free to change it to "South Asia". utcursch | talk 20:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

Hey you had asked about the edit on Vijayanagara Empire. After having read more into the history of the Vijayanagara empire, them warding off invasions were not just against Islamic entities (though most of them were). In addition, I can cite the book by Manu S Pillai "Rebel Sultans" to quote that the kingdoms of the Deccan were not always driven by religious contexts and almost always had mixed armies. The Bahmani and the subsequent breakaway states employed plenty of Marathas and Vijayanagara employed several "Turukas". However, if I misunderstood the historical contexts, please feel free to correct me. Now that I see it again, it says North India. From what I remember from the sacking of Devagiri, that was specifically for plunder. My issue was the usage of the term Muslim for the invasion since these kingdoms were not like the Rashiduns or the Ghaznavids where they had a goal to achieve on religious-political change. Or are Muslims cited as an ethno-religious group? If then, that makes more sense. (Though I disagree with that term when it comes to ethnicities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arjunullas: Fair enough, but you need to provide an edit summary to explain your edits. Also, since Vijayanagara Empire is a featured article, any unsourced changes to existing content are best discussed on the article's talk page first. utcursch | talk 14:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Thank you so much for the guidance on this matter. I'll make sure to follow the rules on all future edits.

Rathore

Hi, I have tried reverting several attempts of this user on the "Rathore" article. He is using a religious book as a reference and the book itself talks more about the intermarrying of Koli's and Rajputs rather than calling them Koli's. Can you check once. Thanks.

Gutriel (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gutriel: The source seems to be fine, since it's a scholarly book published by Oxford University Press. But you're right - the book doesn't state that Rathore is a clan of Koli people - it talks of certain Koli sub-groups that claim Rajput descent, and states that one of the so-called "Rajput Koli Thakordas" are the Rathods of Ghanti and Vaghpur. These people presumably claim descent from Rathod Rajputs. utcursch | talk 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes thanks just wanted to verify. Gutriel (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pallava dynasty

The IPs are at it again, changing the order of languages in the infobox and making other changes [2]. I've requested PP at WP:RFPP, but If you could PP that article, that would be nice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter already protected it. Will keep a watch. utcursch | talk 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahluwalia

I am sending you the links regarding ahluwalia caste.kindly update 1.https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Indian_Biographical_Dictionary_(1915)/Kapurthala,_Raja_of

2.https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/29623/GIPE-000070.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

3.https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7049/7/07_chapter%201.pdf

Brother kindly update this and don’t compare us with kalals only.We ahluwalias are different caste as we are mixture of jat and kalals.Thats why ahluwalias community was made.We don’t even has matrimonial alliances with kalals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.138.26 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what your point is. Ahluwalia (caste) and Kalal are different articles on Wikipedia. The Ahluwalia article already mentions the narratives connecting them to Jats / Kalals. utcursch | talk 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism in Wikipedia

Hi Utcursch I edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogeshwar_Dutt this article about the early life of the person and I am strictly sticking to source but this guy Fylindfotberserk continuosly undoing that without sticking to the source not only this one article.This guy continously stopping other users to adding further geniune information by blocking them. This is my version i am using the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yogeshwar_Dutt&oldid=948879903 He undo this by saying that he will block me similarly he undoing the early life of Sachin tendulkar and other articles too especially articels realted to Brahmins.Is this not comes under vandalisam that a senior wiki editor stopping new ediotrs for further editing and adding information? Can you please tell me is this really wiki india do that biased against new editors ?

Doremon9087, Instead of complaining here, you should be listening to other users. You've been POV pushing Brahmins in a lot of articles, by unsourced and WP:OR additions. In this particular case, I told you multiple times that caste in a WP:BLP article requires self-identification, but you are adamant. I've linked one of the consensus in your talk page as well in one of the edit summaries. Me and other users have notified you about your unconstructive edits multiple times. You are walking on a slippery slope. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk I citied the source in Yogeshwar Dutt and write what was written in the source you removed that and just write few lines of the source not the complete i.e this is complete line Born in a Brahmin family in Bhainswal Kalan village of Haryanawhat you write that is this- Dutt was born in Bhainswal Kalan village in Sonipat district of Haryana.You are not sticking to the source similarly you edit the early life of Sachin Tendulkar from Maharastria Brahmin to only Maharastrian you are not sticking to the source and providing half information to users.

Doremon9087 (talk)

We write everything the source says except for the caste, since it requires self-identification. If a source says XYZ is a Tamil Brahmin, we write only the ethnicity, i.e. Tamil, but leave the Brahmin. So, find an interview in which Yogeshwar Dutt said that he is a Brahmin. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Sorry for not responding more quickly -- I have been away for a few days. Looks like Doremon9087 has been blocked as a sock -- let me know if you need any intervention here. utcursch | talk 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it was obvious that Doremon9087 was here not to build an encyclopedia but to POV push, but didn't know of the sock puppetry till I as informed by Nitin here. I'll contact you in case I need an intervention. Thanks again sir and take care . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jammu and Kashmir district templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Jammu and Kashmir district templates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi

Hi, Please have a look at the changes made by 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ to the page on Indira Gandhi.Many of the changes made by this user include substituting sourced content, with reliable academic sources, to content that have newspaper articles as sources.I also notice the tone of the changes being distinctly POV. I have restored the version before he started editing the page recently. I would appreciate it if you can weigh in on this matter.I do not want to get into an edit war but at the same time I don't want the article quality to go down.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Consider dropping a note at WT:IND. utcursch | talk 15:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation

Can I use this citation? I wanted to fill the article on Kachwaha using the info from this book.Tanpah (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Tanpah: Caste compendiums by colonial administrators are not considered as reliable sources. See this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable?. This book is a hand book on a particular caste group by Alfred Horsford Bingley (1865-1944), who was a colonial army officer: therefore, it is not an acceptable source. utcursch | talk 14:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sriharsha

Yes, I do have references. However, they are not digital copies. When we are talking about Historic Character, we dont necessarily have everything on internet. That is the reason I wanted to put here. So, tried 1st effort. I will check how to cite them. But, I ask you how to you handle information which is not on Internet? Does it mean, that info is not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamlesh.niper (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kamlesh.niper: See Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. utcursch | talk 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

The article Gokula has given wrong information that is defaming the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Satish chandra in his book medieval India part two pg.291, has written that "Gokula was killed brutally, his son converted to Islam, and the daughter married to one of the Emperors slaves". But the article says something completely different. If possible please change that.

Thank you. Tanpah (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Indic scripts

Hi Utkarsch, I know we can not use devnagari or other Indian scripts in the lede or the infobox. If I want to add, for example, उत्कर्ष somewhere else in the article for someone with that name then what is our policy? Thanks for your help.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Well, this is English Wikipedia, so adding words in other scripts for no apparent reason is not encouraged. However, whenever there is a good reason (e.g. it's hard to explain Marathi phonology without presenting some examples in the Devanagari script), it's a good idea to use the {{lang}} template as mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Non-English_strings. Also, sometimes you may want to include quotes in other languages (esp. for literature-related articles): for that, see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. utcursch | talk 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Utcursch.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mishti doi

Hi! Someone is using your name and removing large amount of sourced contents from the article. I wanted to confirm if you endorse their edits. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits. utcursch | talk 12:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Shubhadrangi

Utcursch why are you write only bad things about barber caste without any Indian origin reference you wrote false things about Indian Barber caste(Nai)is only kshtriya so how can you write she a barber and his Kshatriya They both belong to same caste only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8305:AF96:BA4A:5A3:CB1F:507E (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:NOTCENSORED. utcursch | talk 15:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Means what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8002:829F:FA80:AA97:8F17:CA8 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It means you should actually read those pages, and realize that reliably-sourced facts are not going to be removed because you don't like or accept them. utcursch | talk 17:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There no Fact in Shubhadrangi page because page was already edited nicely but you are not happy with that so you wanted to take name of barber's so you planned and try satisfy your self Because your Caste is different you are doing partiality you're nothing that's why proving your self some thing that's why you took name of others . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8502:6c79:b5a3:5cd5:66f4:b97 (talk • contribs)

I am not "taking name of barbers" - the barber bit is mentioned in the Aśokāvadāna, an ancient text. The article contains a reliable source supporting this mention: The Legend of King Aśoka (1989) edited by John S. Strong. If you haven't gone through Wikipedia:Tutorial yet, please do so to understand how Wikipedia works. utcursch | talk 12:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

About Maharajah Ranjit Singh's page

In the matter of Maharaja ancestry the best source would be the contemporary ones and not modern buzzare books who adds rubbish origin.In all the contemporary British Source his family is mentioned as Sandhwalia/Sansi Jat.Golden Book of India, Griffin and also the oldest English book on Lahore durbar.I will add all the sources only if you will stop reverting the change and say it is a castist change.Castist is when he is dubbed as illegimate descendents of a Rajput. Don't you know the clash between Jats and Rajputs and how they target Jat pages. You should look at the edit summary of Patiala State, Bharatpur State and others. I will put more of contemporary sources just don't revert them. Ponia.sp (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Primary sources. utcursch | talk 12:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hindu

Bhai Rajput se Nafrat hai kya... IndianRajput.123 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No. You should understand that Wikipedia is not a platform to glorify your caste. Please use internet forums to fight your caste wars, and go through WP:TUTORIAL if you haven't already. utcursch | talk 20:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of cited material from Prithviraj Chauhan

Why did you remove the mention of Rajput name when the user who added provided the source for the same. I understand that you do not want caste fights and all but you shouldnt show biasness in doing so. If the source that was Britannica Encyclopedia used a caste name so what you should not be the judge of that. We should stick to the truth here on wikipedia. If source says something then it should not be removed, yes if you can provide a source which says he was not Rajput, you can happily add that source as well. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: The last paragraph of the article already mentioned the "Rajput" bit with more nuance, and this bit is sourced in the article body, in the Characterization section. utcursch | talk 10:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Utcursch: While the last para does mention that. But the Britannica source does mention Rajput name so why remove Britannica source but keep the Cynthia's source. Also isnt it that open source material should be preferred over other source and the google book link of Cynthia Talbot is shown only as preview also missing the page number 121 which is cited for the claim. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Cynthia Talbot's source is an authoritative, scholarly secondary source, which describes the Rajput identity bit in a more nuanced manner than a tertiary source like Britannica does. Wikipedia guidelines do not give preference to a source because it is freely accessible (if that's what you mean by "open source"). For example, this book describes Prithviraj as a "Gurjar king" -- we are not going to add that to the article, just because the book is freely accessible. If you want to verify a source that you don't have access to, drop a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. utcursch | talk 11:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Utcursch: The google book link is of a travel guide. Also Cynthia Talbot is not a final authority on Prithviraj Chauhan, there are other historian as well who has mastery over the subject matter. Her book quite recent that mean other historian didnt write anything in her counter yet. But that doesnt mean we should ignore earlier secondary sources by reputed historians. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: No one is "ignoring" earlier authors, and neither is Talbot claiming that Prithviraj hasn't been described as a "Rajput". Talbot elaborates a fact about the 'Rajput' identity of Prithviraj: that he is described as a Rajput by later writers, but he did not call himself / or was called Rajput during his lifetime. We are including this fact in this article, and there is no reason to remove it, or a need to add redundant "Prithviraj was a Rajput king" bit at the beginning when we already have a more nuanced statement.

The Britannica link does not contradict what Talbot is stating. If you have any reliable source that explicitly counters Talbot by claiming that Prithviraj called himself a Rajput or was described as such by contemporary sources, feel free to present it.

As far as I know, no mainstream scholar has contradicted this fact. In fact, several other scholars have asserted that the term "Rajput" when used for the Chahamana dynasty is an anachronism. For an example, see Peter Jackson's The Delhi Sultanate: "Confronting the Ghurid ruler now were a number of major Hindu powers, for which the designation 'Rājput' (not encountered in the Muslim sources before the sixteenth century) is a well-established anachronism. Chief among them was the Chahamana (Chawhan) kingdom of Sakambhari (Sambhar), which [...] under Prthviraja III (the 'Räi Pithurā' of Muslim writers) claimed [...]". utcursch | talk 15:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I am also saying using of the word in anachronistic manner. When there are so many use of anachronism on wikipedia, like word India or Rajasthan are used in the article itself or any other article. When secondary sources are provided, then anachronism can be added. Also use of the cynthia's source can also remain in the article for more clarity but use of the word in anachronistic manner should be used when there are so many historians who used the same for Prithviraj Chauhan. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm... the article clearly states "present-day north-western India" and "present-day Rajasthan" in the lead. It doesn't claim that Prithviraj Chauhan was a citizen of India etc. utcursch | talk 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mughals and Aurangzeb

Hello. I had some edit requests in some article. If you can have a look will be helpful. Thanks and take care. 83.137.6.245 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Other editors seem to be taking care of this. I haven't read much on this topic, so I am hesitant to chip in. Sorry. utcursch | talk 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Khusro khan

Hello Utcursch,The original name of khusro khan is Hamir Rabari.how can change it ??? Hamir Rabari was h hindu from somnath veraval .Gujarati vishvkosh and saurashtra no itihas also agree with it. And tarikh e farishta book, tarikhe e firozshahi also agree with that khusro khan's origin place is Gujarat particular kathiyavar (somnath) and khusro khan was captured during somnath aattck by khilji empire. Him original name was Hamir Rabari after Muslim convoratation him name was Hamir to Hasan. And khilji attack on somnath that is true. Please improve mistakes and add name of Hamir Rabari of somnath in Wikipedia of khusro khan. Gujarat vishvkosh (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Without information don't add Malwa and barude Gujarat vishvkosh (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And what is baradu?? There is not caste like baradu in MP or all over in India. And the villagers near somnath still believe that Hamir Rabari was in that area who became sultan as a khusro khan, and the books tarikh e farishta, tarikh e frojshahi also agree with khusro khan 's original place was kathiyavar somnath. And Gujarat's history Gujarat vishvkosh and saurashtra no itihas and biggest historian like shambhuprasad Desai is also agree with that. So, please don't Tampering with history of Hamir Rabari who was converted into Muslim as a Hasan. Gujarat vishvkosh (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gujarat vishvkosh: Please see WP:V - you need to provide a reliable sources for the changes you make. utcursch | talk 14:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you removing category from Lee(Village) Pauri Uttarrakhand post

Lee is a village in uttarakhand. So I don't understand why are you removing "Villages in uttarakhand" from category. This makes no sense. Theproeditor7 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Theproeditor7: The article is present in the category Category:Villages in Pauri Garhwal district, which is a sub-category of Category:Villages in Uttarakhand. Categories are generally organized in form a tree: if an article is included in category XYZ, generally, you should not include it in the parent categories of XYZ. See WP:DIFFUSE. utcursch | talk 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay I got it. Thanks Theproeditor7 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Banda singh bahadur

Recheck it sir Danish sambyal (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir banda singh bahadur was a minhas rajput from rajouri. Minhas rajputs are an offshoot of jamwal rajputs. They both have bhardwaj gotra as they are suryavanshi rajputs from jammu. Banda singh bahadur was from minhas rajput clan of rajouri as there are no bhardwaj brahmins in rajouri. But still today there are a lot of minhas rajputs in rajouri. Sir you can check sikhwiki and also there are youtube videos in which sikhs are themselves acknowledging the fact that banda singh bahadur was a rajput from rajouri. Have nice day sir. Danish sambyal (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please correct it from youtube which is mentioning banda singh bahadur was a bhardwaj brahmin infact he was a minhas rajput of bhardwaj gitra Danish sambyal (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia* Danish sambyal (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:V -- you need to present a reliable source for your claim. utcursch | talk 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

History

Ancestors of Gurjars pratiharas and Prithviraj Chauhan , Anangpal Tomar Keijohn (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say. utcursch | talk 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to know about the Gurjar community in India and Pakistan. They have any lineage to above mentioned rulers or not. Keijohn (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply Keijohn (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable source that talks about any connection between these two rulers and modern Gurjars. There are theories about connection between the Gurjara-Pratiharas and the modern Gurjars, though: see Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas. utcursch | talk 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it means today's Gurjars are not a martial ( kshatriya) community it confirmed that they are not from that community who ruled India at any time. So they are only belongs to the pastoral community and herders of cow. Because in India they are trying to capture Rajput identity and showing themselves as brave and courageous people. Because of you I clearly understand these people's are spreading misinformation to everyone in this country they belong to the low caste in India and showing themselves as kshatriya. Thankyou brother for your information because of you I have the proof that these people's doesn't belong to the kshatriya varna of India. Thanks a lot.😊😊😊😊😊 Keijohn (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Valmiki caste

Valmiki caste ki Jankari puri likh Wikipedia par samjha Rana1414 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Valmiki Caste ki Jankari Puri Likha Wikipedia par Samjha Rana1414 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Valmiki Caste Pore India ke Valmiki Caste ke bare me likh Rana1414 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hata mat jo likha ha Valmiki caste ke bare me Rana1414 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rana1414: You need to provide a reliable source for the content you add to a Wikipedia article. You can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source (as you did here): see WP:CIRCULAR. If you haven't gone through Wikipedia:Tutorial yet, please do so. utcursch | talk 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there, saw your name on my watchlist and was surprised because for some reason I thought you were no longer active on WP (maybe because I remember you had certain periods of inactivity, but I might be wrong). Anyway, good to see you and hope you're doing well. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: Thanks, and hope you're doing well too. utcursch | talk 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Single-source article

Hi, I am not really into the ancient kingdoms of India but have just noticed Society of Rashtrakuta empire of Manyakheta, based entirely on the Altekar book of 1934. Any idea if that would still be considered a reliable source? We would usually be unhappy with research from that period. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: I haven't read recent works on the Rashtrakuta dynasty, so I'm not sure how relevant and accurate Altekar's 1934 book is. Altekar was a decent historian, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the material from his book has been rendered obsolete by more recent research. Rashtrakuta dynasty (promoted to a featured article status at a time when FA reviewers were more lenient) and related articles rely on Altekar and Reu (1933), and updating them with more recent sources has long been on my watchlist. However, I have been unable to access a recent book which discusses them comprehensively. utcursch | talk 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Single-source articles are deprecated but I see this one was split from the main Rashtrakuta article so things are a bit tricky. Replacing Altekar with a modern source won't really fix that so I am unsure where we might go from here. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Vijaynagar Empire

Krishnadevaraya Father Name Tuluva Narasa Nayaka, Grandfather Name Ishvara Nayaka Okay Nayaka’s Family Rana1414 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rana1414: "Nayaka" is a title; the royal house to which Krishnadevaraya belonged is called the Tuluva dynasty. Also, have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 13:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with Article

Hi, I wanted to ask if this paragraph in the article Rathore is alright.

"Some of the Maratha clans claim to be of Rathore origin. However they claim descent from the Somavansha via the Rashtrakutans that belonged to Yaduvansha from Vrishni warrior Satyaki, unlike the Rajput Rathore's who claim descent from the Suryavansha. ". 

This person has used a single word from a colonial historian (not sure) and has used other references which define the Yaduvanshi origin of the Rashtrakutas but not of the so called Maratha Rathods. Please do have a look, thanks. —Ranadhira (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read the sources, but I'll add the article to my watchlist, and have a look when I've more time. utcursch | talk 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Help with Yadav Article

Hello sir, I’m a Wikipedian who is writing this anonymously to you in anticipation of a fair, unbiased help. Dear Sir, I’ve been seeing the Yadav page and edits surrounding it, and there’s a particular person named Sitush who’s been vehemently editing the page and pages related to the community, also additionally the political parties whose leaders belong to this community, and has been reluctantly reverting progressive edits/ updates and has been keenly adamant to show the community in bad light in the name of keeping Wikipedia neutral. He is far from neutrality, and has even used languages which are inappropriate to users who try to add edits to the pages for improvement. Sir, he is acting as an administrator on those pages, imposing administrative warnings and warring every progressive approach on those pages. At several times, he has arguably edited and added conflicting, derogatory statements. Sir, as a free Wikipedian it’s my request to you, please look into this matter. Wikipedia is made by us Wikipedians who work to keep it updated. No person has to be authoritative for a particular caste, or caste related topics, and sir, believe me, I’m writing this because this person has been spreading hate indirectly-specifically targeted at this community. Thank you very much sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RESTORE THE ORIGINAL VERSION of article

THIS MESSAGE IS REGARDING THE EDIT WARS BY A SPECIAL COMMUNITY AGAINST RAJPUTS.ALTHOUGH I CHECKED THE REVISON AND EDIT HISTORY OF PAGE FROM LAST 8 YEARS YOYU CAN CLEARLY WATCH HOW AFTER 2014 YEAR THE EDITS OR VANDALISM BEGINS . THE TERM RAJPUT IS ALSO REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE .THIS IS MISLEADING AND CREATE A HONEYPOT FOR HISTORY OR CREDIT STEALERS. ARTICLE IS ALTHOUGH PROTECTED TILL 2021. SO ITS A REQUEST TO YOU TO RESTORE THE THE TERM RAJPUT. HERE IS LINK OF WORLD'S MOST PROMINENT ENCYCLOPEDIA britannica https://www.britannica.com/biography/Prithviraja-III IF NEED MORE YOU CAN ASK ME BUT RESTORE THE VANDALISM DONE ON PAGELoneltrussia (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Prithviraj Chauhan already mentions the term "Rajput". utcursch | talk 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

kindly restore the rajput word mentioned in starting of article as current one is in last of article which is creating some confusions for some users.

Velanati cholas belong to kammas

N.G.ranga mentioned his book Kakatiya Nayaks: Their Contribution to Dakshinapath's Independence, 1300-1370 A.D. Velanati Chodas who were also of the Durjaya clan, within the broad tribe of Kammas, the traditional peasant- warrior class. Durjayavamsakammavamsa (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. utcursch | talk 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihar

Hi, I have messed up a ping for your thoughts at Talk:Bhumihar, sorry. New section there about varna & occupation. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi i am Whiteraven335 ,a user continuously modifying the article Kumaon Regiment as per their personal preferences WhiteRaven335 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Vashikaran" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vashikaran. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Vashikaran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Pashtuns

Hi, I wanted your help regarding the page mentioned above, Template:Pashtuns. The conflict is about mentioning the Khilji dynasty on the template, which covers the highlights of Pashtun history and civilization. As per the general scholarly consensus, Khiljis are identified as Turkic people not Pashtuns. In your last edit you clearly stated that Khiljis were not to be mentioned on the template. Yet we have POV pushers who are keen to add the dyansty on the page, probably with an ethnic chauvinist agenda. Please intervene and protect the page. Thanks. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. Will take a look when I've a chance. utcursch | talk 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Multiple Barnstar for you!

		The Multiple Barnstar
		Thank You Utkarshraj for your Great contribution to the Wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work to improve Wikipedia, Thank You for your contribution to WikiProject India related articles.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pravega: Thanks a lot! utcursch | talk 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Saraswati

My friend why would you erase a perfectly reliable source I posted? It's ok if you disagree with me, but I provided a perfectly reliable source from the 1600s (Ferishta) who disputes what the modern Indian scholar assumed. If you don't respond/explain why u don't accept my source then I will just re-edit the page again bro

@Mydust: Ignoring the fact that this is a primary source (16th century book about a chronicler), the above link (pg. 104) doesn't talk about Tughluq - it is about Muhammad Ghuri. Same with Surinder Singh's book (pg. 245) that you've linked here - it doesn't talk about Tughluq, but about Baba Farid. Another source that you added here talks about Punjab during the times of Ranjit Singh. These sources stating that some Khokhars converted to Islam in the 13th century is not sufficient to make the assertion that the Khokhars in Tughluq's army were Muslims - the source explicitly needs to state that the Khokhars in Tughluq's army had already converted to Islam by this time -- otherwise your additions are original research, which is not acceptable here. Also, if you are adding any new sources, please do not remove existing sources that disagree with your assertion -- the article should read "According to historian X.... but according to historian Y...". utcursch | talk 02:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Utcurstch: While the main topic in all the books I posted are about different eras, in their detailed descriptions all 3 historians in said books assert the same claim that the majority of Khokhars were converted during the 12-13th century, a century before Tughlaq's battle, which disputes Saxena's opinion that the Khokhars were a Hindu community. By the way Saxena does not only claim that only the Khokhars in Tughlaq's army were Hindu, he claims the whole Khokhar community was a Hindu commmunity. This is clearly disputed by more than 3 historians, Surinder Singh being the latest in 2015. Also you advised me to not delete any other sources if I am to add my own, while you delete all 3 of the sources I posted? You cannot seriously expect me to keep Amir Khusro's quote on the page, which claims Greeks and Russians were in the Punjab as mercenearies(rumis and rusis). Even if it is not taken seriously, it has no purpose to the page other than being misleading, so I will remove it. :Mydust|Mydust]] (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this is your your own original research. I'm not sure where Saxena claims that "the whole Khokhar community" was Hindu, but if he does, please get your research disputing him published in a scholarly journal before you cite it on Wikipedia.

You're removing a reliable source which explicitly states that the Khokhars in Tughluq's army included Hindus. There are several other sources that directly support this statement. For example, here's a quote from Aniruddha Ray's The Sultanate of Delhi (1206-1526): "Tughluq claimed that he was fighting for Islam,[...], But these were of very little value to his followers. [...] There were two Hindu groups with them – Khokkars and Mewatis". I can present at least 10 more books which support this statement.

You've not provided any source that explicitly disputes this.

• Surinder Singh's book doesn't state the Khokhars in Tughluq's army were not Hindu -- it doesn't even states that the "majority of Khokhars" (as you claim) had converted to Islam. The page that you've linked to states that according to Ali Asghar Chishti, Khokhars were one one of the clans supposedly converted to Islam by Baba Farid. Singh himself suggests that he doubts this claim when he states that "It has been *claimed* that the above clans were converted to Islam by Baba Farid".
• Rishi Singh's book doesn't even mention Tughluq. Nor does it mention that all (or even majority of) the Khokhars had converted to Islam by Tughluq's time. It only states that by Ranjit Singh's time, a "significant number" among Khokhars were Muslims. It also talks about Baba Farid's influence on and conversion of Bhattis, Jats and other groups, whose populations include several Hindus to this day.
• The page in Firishta's book that you've linked to doesn't talk about Tughluq either - it states that "a great part" of "Gukkurs" (presumably Khokhars) who inhabited a specific region adopted Islam during Ghuri's reign. Not to mention that Firishta is not WP:HISTRS-compliant.

I removed your sources because they don't talk about Khokhars in Tughluq's army being Hindu (or Muslim) - they are not relevant to the article. Amir Khusro's quote is present in the article, because it's present in the source (a history book): it is relevant, and it is not "misleading", because the article (and the cited source) explicitly explains that it's inaccurate.

If you find any source that explicitly disputes Khokhars in Tughluq's army being Hindu, feel free to add it to the article. If you insist on using the same sources that you've already presented, please gain consensus for your edits on the talk page per WP:BRD. Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for a third opinion. utcursch | talk 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Chola vs Chozha

Please replace 'Chola' with 'Chozha' in 'Chola Dynasty' article because Chola means 'சோல'/ 'சோள' and 'Chozha' means 'சோழ' which is accurate and correct pronunciation.Helppublic (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic: Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want this article title to be changed. The scholarly works about Chola history generally use either Tamil Lexicon or IAST transliteration schemes, neither of which use 'zh' to denote this sound. utcursch | talk 02:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty

Recently there have been some changes in the page. The turkic template has been added to khalji page. If it is to remain there, history of Afghanistan template should also be added to balance it out. I am writing here since you have edited most of the origin section before. Thank you.

Nomination of Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spiderone 12:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Utcursch

Thank you for creating Sikarwar.

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

Synonym for an existing Sakarwar article. I converted it to a redirect to that article. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rathore

Hi, any idea what is going on at Talk:Rathore#Discussion_of_a_citation and at the article itself? There seem to be some very dodgy edits happening, possibly involving synthesis or original research. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. Will take a look when I've some time on my hands. utcursch | talk 19:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi I would like your help editing an article 😊

Hi Utcursch! I need help editing an article. It’s on the festival Pongal. I added the 2021 date for Pongal, and deleted the 2020 date and source. It deleted the infobox, and I need help getting it back to normal. I found you on the talk page on the article for Pongal. Please check out the page and see what happened.

Thanks, Sophie — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophieMontano12 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@SophieMontano12: Sorry for the late reply -- I have been inactive for the past few days. I'm not sure if you're still looking for help, but if you are, put {{helpme}} on your talk page, and someone will come to your aid. utcursch | talk 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Are you anti hindu aurthor or Anti muslim aurthor Wikipedia? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those. Please see WP:NPOV. utcursch | talk 19:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty vandalism

Hello this is important! There have been major vandalism in khalji dynasty page. Since you have edited the origin section, it was my duty to inform you. The origin section (and opening) have been changed from turk o afghan to turkic. There have been other vandalism too as you can find it in "view history". The contributer name is khanbaba or something. All you have to do is to "undo" it to your and (some other contributors) original well sourced edits. It is very important as it seriously undermines the credibality of wikipedia. Hope something is done soon enough. I am waiting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.20.23 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. This seems to have been taken care of by other editors. utcursch | talk 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Anangpa Tomar

Sir, is this, a proper edit. Isn't Britannica a tertiary source? I've seen a 2-3threads at WP:RSN, but couldn't find a clear consensus on whether we should be using Britannica, with some people saying it is better to use it unless we find more reliable secondary source(s). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yeah, Britannica is a tertiary source, and at least since past few years, they have been accepting user contributions (which are approved by generic editors not necessarily experts in the relevant field). It's still a decent source, but should be avoided if more nuanced secondary, reliable sources are available. utcursch | talk 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't remove that. The older source was deemed unreliable. While you were away, we had a discussion here regarding the related article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Rajput article

Hi, I know that caste related articles are a mess to take care of, however the Rajput article has been targeted in a very negative way. A specific user is carefully spouting his/her hatred towards a specific community and going as far as to say-

"This page has been written as a blog and is used for caste glorification. I can assure you that the academic consensus is quite different. This was an illiterate community (with a few gaining political power), mostly comprising of illiterate peasant soldiers. "

This personal comment can be found in the talk section of the Rajput article. This account has been used solely to degrade the article and the user has been fixated in finding whatever sources he/she can find to twist or take out words and sentences in order to write their agenda. Please do a quick survey and if you validate these edits then I wont try to bother anyone and ignore whats happening. Thanks. Ranadhira (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Seconded, @Utcursch There have been heavy editing on the page by two editors @LukeEmily and @HebaAisha. I tried to build consensus on the page but @LukeEmily who edited most of the page didnt engage in talk page and kept on editing the page. I sense once sided view in the editing and asked about it but in vain. When I removed some portion after giving solid reason but he didnt listen and reverted everything back I dont want to engage in edit war. Please look into the matter. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• first of all i already told u that i just moved images to new section and the Addition of image was my only contribution.Second @LukeEmily: added source which are from Oxford and other known works ......and u are just removing them to glorify the particular community.Also ur edits says that ure here to edit only particular Rajput related pages on the basis of ur personal opinion.WIKIPEDIA is a community and verification required to edit.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• second you are aware of WP:Notcensored properly...there are many unwanted things written about many communities and they are on wikipedia.If you think that the admin are not keeping track of our discussions.Then u are wrong. ....last day one admin blocked a person who made personal attack on me and today one another admin showed presence.You can't ask about favour as LukeEmily has done nothing against the policies.All edits are sourced from high quality sources and quote are added....also only problem is that u don't like wt is written so this is not an issue.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, Ranadhira, I have nothing against your Rajput community. If there is an academic source that says all Rajputs are incarnations of angels from the Bible , I will add it. I could not care less. Quoting an academic source does not mean "hate". I read this article and was shocked at the glorification because I have read academic books on the same topic and the article was very low quality(no offense intended to anyone). I have explained multiple times, NOT EVEN ONE EDIT is my personal opinion. Heba and I have been attacked multiple times by Rajput caste promoters called words like "malicious", "rabid dog"(See Sitush's talk page history- that editor who posted on Sitush's page was banned) - an attack that a kind admin reverted. There is a discussion with Bishonen and Sitush. Now, as far as illiterate is concerned - it is not my personal opinion. So here are the references: André Wink (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. BRILL. p. 282. ISBN 0-391-04173-8. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...

Norman Ziegler (1976). David Henige (ed.). "History in Africa (vol.3)". African Studies Association. Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 150: Rajputs were, with some exceptions, almost totally illiterate as a caste group

But according to these caste promoters mentioning this is "hate" LukeEmily (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There are more references if needed.LukeEmily (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already complains at various noticeboard.So it will be difficult to decide it here.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• By the way Good night everyone i need a sleep.And i m happy that till now i have not violated any policy even i didn't edited rajput page except creating a gallery for images added by u guys.ok bye then....see u tomorrow.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@HebaAisha you are repetitively accusing me of caste promotion, many a times when I made it clear to you and @LukeEmily that I am only editing Rajasthani history related topic which I was student of. Hence I only know about history hence can edit history related topics. For an outsider probably you guys, Rajasthani history may look like Rajput glorification but I assure you its not. For @LukeEmily's constant one sided addition can also count as disparaging a community but unlike you guys I am not saying such things. I am fed up with writing same thing over and over but I suggest @Utcursch to read the talk page. Both of these guys accounts are fairly new 1-2 months old. Both of these guys are trying to hound me for just 2 edits for which I have I have goven explanations too, I used talk page before editing but @LukeEmily ignored everything and keep on editing when I edited and reverted 2-3 lines both of these guys issued warnings and complaints against me to Admins. They are trying only to give their point of view without talking at talk page and when dont want any opposition of views. I care less for any origin theories but it should be a balanced view which you didnt maintain. I request Utcursch to revert the page to as it was on 05 Aug and then if anyone wants to add something or revert something then he/she can build consensus on talk page and then add or delete it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Sajaypal007, Please note that wikipedia is not censored. If you want any WP:RS removed , you can discuss why you need to have it removed. It looks like you want anything that is academic/scholarly *but* unpleasant removed from the page. The Shudra, illiterate and peasant/pastoral origin is supported by multiple independent academic sources. The wikipedia intent is not to disparage any community but to portray an accurate representation as given by scholars. Sajaypal007, if you want to promote your community, no one is stopping you. But don't use wikipedia for it. Create a website or a blog and write whatever you want on it. You will be the owner of the page. You do not own wikipedia. In wikipedia, students of history will make changes based on what the academic sources say - even if it is not flattery. For peasant/pastoral origin - see Talk:Rajput#pastoral_origin. The very fact that you want to remove any mention of shudra, peasant and illiterate (all three are well supported by multiple academic citations), shows that you are interested in glorifying the caste. @Sitush, Ravensfire, and Bishonen:. This is another example of what is going on : [3] Showbiz826 removed a source completely from the page. Its gone! In [4] and [5] - Sajaypal007 completely removed sources. If you want wikipedia to be neutral please stop such editors from promoting their caste. Please check the history of the edits by Sajaypal007. He seems to take offense and blatantly delete any source that says anything unpleasant about Rajputs. [6] is by wikimaster2017. He did the same - deleted academic references but at least he was banned for 72 hours. LukeEmily (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• so ...revert the page....to make it WP:Puffery where nothing is written about Shudra origin.....good😁 and wikipedia don't have policies that say that new users can't edit.So no problem in my self being new.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Brother you are more stressed on proving heavenly origin....like it was done in past.....where most of the article contained Agnikula myth and....shudra origin was not mentioned but i have been reading since my college days.No community in India except brahmin can claim pure descent.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I partially agree. But there might be some non-brahmin groups who might have not mixed too much and can probably claim purity. As one example (non-Hindu), the Parsi community is quite pure in my opinion. BTW, There are some brahmin subcastes that may not have pure descent. But we have to take it on a case by case basis. As a rule of thumb I have found that numerically large communities ( Rajputs, Marathas , Nairs etc.) have large shudra components because it was easy to become part of these communities. The threshold of entry was very low because education was not necessary. Larger the community, smaller is their possibility of being of pure vedic descent. Varna mobility is a very interesting topic.LukeEmily (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• You guys are using multiple front to write long paras against me, and threatening me with warning when you in reality didnt engage in talk page. This page is not about writing long paras keep that to talk page because I cant keep track of all this multiple fronts you guys opened. I only asked here for his attention in that page. This is no place for discussion. For millionth time dont accuse me of promoting any community, I am history enthusiast from rajasthan and thats what I do I study Rajasthani history hence edit the related topics. And to @HebaAisha will you stop with your lies. On multiple occasion you said something about me which wasnt true at all, I never stressed on proving heavenly origin. Look at edit history of that page. My edits which are hardly 2-3 will pape in comparison to You guys' numerous edits. I request @Utcursch to look into this matter urgently and may I suggest reversion of the edits made by these guys and let them first make consensus on talk page then edit. Because these guys edited heavily and even a single revert with proper reason is reverted again by them and then they are filing complaints here and there just for 2 edits. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've been somewhat busy outside of Wikipedia, so unable to contribute to this discussion right now. This is best discussed at Talk:Rajput. Please consider the methods listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if required. utcursch | talk 17:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:W28394

Hi Sir, i see that you have had interaction with the user User:W28394. He is continuously involved in edit wars with different users on pages like Hindkowans, Khalji dynasty etc. He has already broken the three revert rule in Khalji dynasty when there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Similarly he has been removing big chunks of information and adding the information which is not part of any reference being used in the article. He has been warned on his page and he seems to be a vandalism only account. I have reported the user to the admins but i haven't received a response yet. I would appreciate if you could look into this matter. Kami2018 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Evening, User:Kami2018 above is only paying undue (unnecessarily undoing my edits) attention to the articles I edit as a petty way of getting back at me for undoing the vandalism he was involved in on another wiki article (Khalji Dynasty). You can verify this by looking at the date of my first reverts on that article and his reverts on the 'Hindkowan' article. He has been warned by various users before, including myself. I would like to request a senior editor to look into his wiki history and the number of warnings he has received for vandalism. Clearly User:Kami2019 is not interested in a consensus and has been in the past involved in vandalizing various wiki articles and enforcing his not so factual views on to other editors. I tried reasoning with him but to no avail. Kindly check the talk pages of the articles he is involved in vandalizing below. I will be reporting this account to other editors as well.

Edit: I have just noticed that some other users have also brought this issue up here under khalji dynasty' and 'khalji dynasty vandalsim'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khalji_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindkowans

W28394 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly W28394 is involved in edit wars in multiple articles as mentioned here [[7]] where i have given my opinion along with another user. Similarly here [[8]] where he is involved in removing big chunks of information from the articles without any consensus. This user is adding Pashtun to these articles when all the reverted information was in correspondence with the following statements in the referenc es. He is still using the same sources but is adding information no matter what.

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India

I would appreciate if you could look into this issue Kami2018 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. Please consider a third party opinion as discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 17:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Good Evening, unfortunately, I have to write on your talk page again due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[9]],here [[10]] and here, [[11]].

Like I mentioned earlier, User:Kami2018 is only paying undue (unnecessarily undoing my edits) attention to the articles I edit as a petty way of getting back at me for editing a page he was involved in on another wiki article (Khalji Dynasty). You can verify this by looking at the date of my first reverts on that article and his reverts on the 'Hindkowan' article

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. Pertaining to your unfounded complaint about the Khalji article, may I remind you that you have been involved in undoing every other edit WITHOUT coming to a consensus yourself? Is consensus = your approval? I have already answered all those questions here [[12]] but I shall do it here again.

Your counter argument is;

Clearly all the sources mention them as Turkic settled in afghanistan. I have reported your edit to the admin and i think you should read the references and then perform constructive edits. Once again: Statements from the references used within the article:

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India

To your counter argument, I replied (after which you have not replied).

1) You are confusing ethnicity with genetics/ancestry when ethnicity is much more than that. An ethnicity is the state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is not limited to genetics or ancestry.

2) This article is about the Khalji dynasty of Delhi. NOT the Khalaj people who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty.

3) Like I said in my explanation earlier, Khaljis without a doubt descended from a Turkic tribe BUT were adopted into the Pashtun/Afghan ethnicity about a thousand years ago. BEFORE the Khalji Dynasty took the throne in Delhi. You ASSUME that due to Khaljis being descendants of the Khalaj people, they remained Turkic forever. Which is extremely ignorant given the fact that;

4) Pashtuns are NOT a homologous group of people. Pashtuns have historically descended from different groups of people. From the hephthalites to the khaljis. Today, the Khaljis/Ghilzais are the largest tribal confederacy among the Pashtun ethnicity and are nowhere to be found among the Turkic people. They re purely called Afghan/Pashtun, not Turkic. Some popular Khaljis today are/were Ashraf Ghani (President of Afghanitsan) and Mullah Omar (Ex Taliban Chief), they are referred to as Pashtuns, not Turks.

5) The main question here is whether the Khaljis of the DELHI SULTANATE were Pashtunized by the time they ascended the throne and the obvious answer is YES.

6) Like the sources state, "They were looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners". 'Wrongly' does not matter in this context as we have already established the above points about the identity of the Khalaj people, who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty, and the identity of the Khalji Dynasty itself.

7) Other sources reestablish the FACT that the Khalji Dynasty of Delhi were more Afghan/Pashtun than their ancestors, the Khalaj, and that they had adopted the Afghan/Pashtun ethnicity. "The Khaljis had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks" and "The Khaljis were a Turkic tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians"

8) Going by all the above statements, you will have to completely lack comprehension skills to NOT see that the Khalji Dynasty was NOT a Turkic dynasty but a Pashtun/Afghan dynasty of Turkic descent which was entirely Pashtunized by the time it took the throne from the pure bred Turks. If you have any doubt, refer to point 1 again. Thanks.

I will not be engaging with him any further as he has time and again showed he is not one to be reasoned with. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are u so anti hindu???

Why are us so anti hindu always subtling adding ur nihilistic and Atheistic opinions in dharmic article? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to the edits you're talking about. utcursch | talk 17:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hindi poets has been nominated for renaming

Category:Hindi poets has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Request review of Draft:Somnath Waghmare

Hi — If possible, I'd like to request your review on a draft article my friend has prepared about a well-known documentary film-maker and Dalit rights activist in Maharashtra, India. Because I helped him polish the article, I do not want to create conflicts of interest. It'd be create if you could review — Draft:Somnath_Waghmare. Thanks! Vivek Rai (talk)

Mark WikiProject Linux as inactive?

Hi! I was directed to your talk page by the participants list on WikiProject Linux. I've started a discussion whether we can keep it running, or mark it as inactive.– Abuluntu ( talk 06:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please block

Hi. Will you please block 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) since IPs on this range have been persistently harassing and vandalizing pages I edited and my talk pages for months. Not only in enwiki but also across several wikis like idwiki and commonswiki. Its sisters, 120.188.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) and 114.5.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) (also 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) on ENWIKI) are now globally blocked for this exact reason. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

I am a new editor and I created a new article on the malayalam youtube channel- Karikku. An AFC editor who was impressed by my article, but did not know about the relevant sources used in it, asked it as a question in Wikiproject India. He recieved two indirect but positive responses, and is waiting for more. Please give your valuable comments at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#I need a notability check here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#I_need_a_notability_check_here) --Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty

Hi Utcursch, i see that you were involved in the talk page for this article and you were strongly advocating for the usage of information from the references, but unfortunately 2 users have been continously changing the referenced information and are trying to portray an Afghan or Pashtun descent of the dynasty. Here is link to your conversation on the talk page [[13]] and [[14]]. I tried to provide arguments on the talk page but they just seem to ignore all the information. One of the user was blocked as well and currently i have been blocked for a week but i have tried to explain my position here [[15]]. Below is the reversion of the article from the accepted version to the new version which is wrong and misleading. There are multiple intermediate edits and reverts from its original state to the new [[16]]

I wanted to request you to see if you could bring it to a state which corresponds to the references and is according to unbiased information. Thankyou for your help Really appreciate it Regards Kami2018 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kind of busy with other things right now. Maybe try WP:DRN. utcursch | talk 22:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Interview request

Hello, Utcursch!

My name is Daniel, and I'm a senior at Harvard writing an undergraduate thesis on Wikipedia. One chapter of my thesis will center around Wikipedia's notability policy; I'm particularly curious about the inclusionism vs. deletionism debate that has played out among Wikipedia editors.

I see that you're listed among the earliest members of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, and you're one of the few that are still active today. If you see this message, would you mind if I sent you a few questions (via email or right on here) about your views on deletionism and how you approach the question of notability?

Thanks so much!

--Dalorleon (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dalorleon: Sure, you can e-mail me or post the questions here. utcursch | talk 22:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Utcursch -- Thanks so much for agreeing to answer my questions! I've posted them below. Feel free to take your time and get back to me when you can. And let me know if you need me to clarify anything.

• How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you identified as an deletionist?
• How would you describe your personal brand of deletionism? Where do you draw the line between topics that are Wikipedia-worthy and topics that are not?
• How does your belief in deletionism impact the way you contribute to Wikipedia? (Creating new pages, deleting old pages, trimming down existing pages, etc.)
• How do you feel about Wikipedia’s general notability guideline as it’s currently written? (“If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”) As a deletionist, do you think this is an appropriate standard for notability, or would you favor changing it to something more narrow? (Also, do you happen to know when this exact guideline was formulated, and by whom?)
• In general, as you contribute to Wikipedia, how heavily do you rely on Wikipedia’s “official” policies and guidelines for guidance? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?
• Have you ever participated in the Articles for Deletion forum? If so, in what way? Has your belief in deletionism ever influenced how you contribute there?
• Has your belief in deletionism ever brought you into disputes with other Wikipedia editors? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! If I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dalorleon: Apologies for the late reply: I've been busy outside of Wikipedia.

• I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003. I registered an account in 2004, and I've identified as a deletionist since then. I started identifying as a 'deletionist' to distinguish myself from editors who interpreted the words "the sum of all human knowledge" quite liberally. Back in the 2000s, I used to be quite active in patrolling new pages, and a lot of these pages were self-promotion material (e.g. an obscure garage band, or a 'hacker' who believed himself to be an internet celebrity). I used to get quite annoyed when certain editors insisted on keeping these articles, because the band had been mentioned once in a small town newspaper, or the 'hacker' had been mentioned twice in an e-zine with 500 subscribers.
• The present notability guidelines are a good indicator of what I believe should be included in Wikipedia. As the popular saying goes, "Wikipedia is not the Internet" -- it is possible that a specific piece of information is important or useful, but there are more suitable websites for that information. Personally, I tend to ask questions like "Does this appear to be vanity/promotion?" and "50 years from now, would people like this to be included in a general reference compendium?" So, I am OK with an article about an obscure historical building that has been mentioned in three journals, but not with an article about a new mobile app that has been mentioned in ten press-release like newspaper articles.
• I tend to favour deletion/trimming of content that is not in accordance with the notability / reliability guidelines.
• The present notability guideline is fair and appropriate. The terms "significant coverage", "reliable sources", and "independent of the subject" are often a matter of debate, but I think such debates are necessary on a case-to-case basis, and I can't think of better wording. As for who formulated the guideline, it has evolved over the years, with inputs from several editors. You can get a good idea from the revision history for Wikipedia:Notability and its talk page; for example, here is the first insertion stressing the importance of non-trivial mentions in multiple independent sources.
• I rely on these policies and guidelines all the time. Like I mentioned, the different interpretations of the words like "significant coverage", "reliable sources", and "independent of the subject" may lead to discussion in certain cases, which offers flexibility.
• I used to be quite active in the Votes for deletion (later Articles for deletion) discussions. Obviously, I used to vote 'delete' for the topics that I considered non-notable. Earlier, especially in the early 2000s, the guidelines and consensus on what's inclusion-worthy were not very clear, so there was a lot of discussion on the topics that would be clearly marked as inclusion/deletion-worthy today.
• In the 2000s, when I regularly patrolled new pages, I used to nominate quite a few pages for deletion. In several cases, some editors wanted the articles to be kept, and such disputes were resolved via the usual deletion discussions. Rarely, we would end up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I've been involved in deletion discussions in the later years as well, but less frequently. In general, I've been satisfied with the outcomes of such discussions.

Let me know if you have any more questions. You can include my username / real name in your research. utcursch | talk 15:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your responses, utcursch! These have been super helpful. I'll reach out if I have any further questions. Otherwise, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

About Tomaras

Hello Utchurch I recently added about Tomaras And reworded the content Bit More Also Its wrong to Say Rajput originate In 16th Century infact Ignorant to say least The Rajput House of Mewar has its history going back in remote past Also they have it recorded in systamatical manner So Theory of Anachronism too is highly controversial I hope u agree With me. Rathores of Marwar Became prominent in 1226 who was a Rajput clan and Rathore rajputs are prominent in Pali region way back in 9th century Read GN Sharma book. Not saying anything In wrong manner just saying What It is The Theory of Anchronism Is not supported by Romila Thapar Satish Chandra And Jn Sarkar who was First Historian to use Rajout sources while writing Their Past unlike Tablot and many western Scholars who puzzle Up Indian History,Neither Dasrath sharma call it anchronism, Its misguiding to say the least. Anyway I did reowrding on Tomar dynasty page Removing controversial Part kindly Check I can add more date if u Like Katoch clan of Rajputs is ruling From 5th century onwards and they are mentjoned as Rajputs everywhere See Book Legacy of Jihad. Bottom Line Rajput History is A Puzzling Thing Better stay with established facts Its Foolish to Say they emerged in 16th century Sarkar Call That Rajput as a caste emerge in Indian Social Structure in 12th Century around Ghorid Invasions see his Book A History of Jaipur pg 32 Fact is I Can add more date about Rajputs. Its Upto u End of day Wikipedia editor edit as per their Agenda And Narrative. Cheers Mate Samboy 01681 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Kindly read this message fully. Samboy 01681 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See My Message About Tomaras

Read my earlier message. Samboy 01681 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

About Rajput page

Hi Utcursch, as you are active again. Can you take a look at Rajput page. The article is heavily edited in recent times and I believe you are not only a senior editor and admin but also an expert in history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there reason for concern here?

[17] and [18]. Ping me please if you think this is worthy of a reply. Thanks. --Doug Weller talk 16:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: A bunch of caste warriors pushing their POV. Most of them will probably end up getting blocked for edit warring or sockpuppetry. utcursch | talk 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So they need alerts per Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups? Doug Weller talk 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be helpful. I think at least some of them have already been blocked for sockpuppetry. We can expect more caste warriors, as the release of Prithviraj (film) approaches near. utcursch | talk 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained reverting in Kingdom of Jeypore

There has been a lot of unexplained reverting in the WP:Kingdom of Jeypore by an admin called RegentsPark. The article before the recent reverting by RegentsPark contained good information about the kingdom and politics in the region and the sources/references used were according to the Wikipedia policies. Can you please look into the page and is there any possibility of reverting it back to the original article? Dersvey8 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging IPs

Hi Utcursch, I'm supervising Girth Summit as they work through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nikhil448 and noticed that you have tagged a lot of IPs as suspected. I wanted to let you know that we usually don't tag IPs as sockpuppets, since we only use sockpuppet tags on indefinitely-blocked users. Not trying to give you a hard time, this isn't something you would have known, just letting you know for next time. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I just wanted to create a list of all the IPs from which this person is making these disruptive edits: helps with determining the block range. utcursch | talk 14:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Utcursch, I started going through and removing the tags earlier on; came back to finish off now and I see that you've deleted them yourself, thanks that saved me a job! Happy holidays, hope the new year is good for you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Utcursch, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Fylindfotberserk: Happy holidays to you too! Cheers! utcursch | talk 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Utcursch: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Same to you! May 2021 be an exciting year! utcursch | talk 14:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Utcursch!

Happy New Year!

Utcursch,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Fylindfotberserk: Same to you! Hope this year is exciting and wonderful for all of us! utcursch | talk 16:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A Notification

Hello Admin Utcursch I observe that u are a expert in History and very old reliable Editor but What I observe in recent times is that Rajputs related articles have been badly Tempered by a Group of Editors led by Charitoder they did as best as they could To reduce Rajput past as much as they Can,They are also backed up by Peoples like Ravensfire Recently they removed all Content of Rajput Confrontations with Arabas,Ghazanvids and Ghurids on Page of Rajput resistance to Muslim Conquests further they also removed name of Prithviraja-III from List of Rajputs who has been on page from several years Such deliberate hatred makes readers think Wiki is trying to reduce the Past of Community Which Shouldn't be the Case So Sir Its a freindly request to Revert all this articles to last best versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:40BC:F18D:97AD:6FD6:DFB5:AE1F (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

new article submission

Hi Utcursch, Could you weigh in on a potential article about Dr. Rajesh Dhirawani whether or not he meets the notability criteria? Here's something about him: https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2019/6/23/Dr-Dhiravani-awarded-honorary-degree-of-FRCS.html