RegentsPark (talk | contribs) →Hello: reply |
Shashank5988 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
[[User:Ratan375|Ratan375]] ([[User talk:Ratan375|talk]]) 05:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Ratan375|Ratan375]] ([[User talk:Ratan375|talk]]) 05:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Ratan375}} Unfortunately, there is no original source. What you're dealing with is multiple, differing, translations (multiple, differing) of multiple, differeing versions of a text that was written (told, retold) eons ago. All we can go with is scholarly interpretations of what the texts say. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 11:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Ratan375}} Unfortunately, there is no original source. What you're dealing with is multiple, differing, translations (multiple, differing) of multiple, differeing versions of a text that was written (told, retold) eons ago. All we can go with is scholarly interpretations of what the texts say. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 11:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
==ARCA== |
|||
I have filed a request about an arbitration decision where you had participated. You can view it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_WP:ARBIPA here]. [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:03, 22 June 2020
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 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Yo Ho Ho
November 2017
- Copied from my talk page where it was added by User:Fishnagles in appreciation of my removal of spam that they were adding to Charles Manson.
Hello, I'm Fishnagles. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Mughals and Aurangzeb
Hello. I had some edit requests in some article. If you can have a look will be helpful. Just curious, does your username have anything to do with Regents Park in London. Thanks and take care. 83.137.6.245 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping np. I'll let someone else deal with these. --regentspark (comment) 15:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Unexplain removal of content
Hi,
I just saw that there has been removal of a huge chunk of sourced info in Karna wiki 4 days ago. The description says "as per discussion in talk page".
I checked the talk page discussion under "Hostilities with Pandavas". There, another user (Dinesh) has cited some primary source to correct a few words, but for that this editor removed a whole chunk of content with secondary sources, some not even related to the discussion in talk page. The said secondary sources are all scholarly material by Indologists Kevin Mcgrath and Alf Hiltebetel.
I checked the previous edits of this editor who made the last edit on Karna page, and other pages like Pandavas. Correct info from Mahabharata with reference to secondary sources by published scholars like Kevin Mcgrath have been removed and replaced by other sources and content with flawed grammar.
Please have a look at it. I would like to understand if this kind of removal and edits is allowed in Wikipedia.
(PatientWaiter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC))
- @Divyam Seth:, could you take a look at this? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Thanks for involving Divyam here. We will wait for him to reply. Meanwhile, just wanted to clarify, are google ebook links to books described as "imaginative transcreation" (in other words, fictionalized novels on the epic) in their product description in Goodreads and Amazon allowed as "reliable" sources in Wikipedia? This is relevant to Karna wiki edits.
(PatientWaiter (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
- Thanks for adding me into this discussion.
Sir, I have not removed the whole of the chunk in the article Karna under section "Hostilities with Pandavas". Some part of the content in the above section have different majority views so I removed them, also I wish to keep due contents. There are about 157 references in the article Karna and approx. 50 plus references are from a single source [Kevin Mc Grath], His references are all over the articles, so removing few lines doesn't mean that I’m removing his references.
Regarding edits at Pandava, I do checked and confirmed that I have not removed/deleted any live reference by scholar like Kevin Mc Grath. Also, I would like to admit that, maybe I have done some mistakes due to ignorance, but, don’t have any bad intentions behind that.
Thanks Divyam Seth (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Divyam Seth:,
Thanks for taking out your time to respond. I am not doubting your intention which I am sure was good. However, please note, 1. Your edit has slightly disrupted the flow in the article as it has removed one of the reasons behind the "hostility" between Karna and Pandavas. 2. You have added google ebook link to a fictionalized novel named "Karna the Unsung Warrior" by Umesh Kotru as a "reliable source", although as per Wiki policies, "secondary sources" should include scholarly, academic materials only. Not fiction novels. I would request RegentsPark to correct me if I am wrong.
3. In Pandavas page, the lead section has some grammatical errors. Do you mind if I correct it?
(PatientWaiter (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
- Hello @PatientWaiter:, Thank you so much. I will look into the paragraph again, also will be happy if you can provide your suggestions in talk page of the article. I do agree with your point no.2 and will do necessary changes and you are most welcome to correct the grammatical errors in pandava page. 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Divyam Seth (talk)
@Divyam Seth:, Thanks a lot for your cooperation. I have brushed up the Pandavas lead section. You may have a look to see if you need me to add anything else.
I will check the Karna talk page later, maybe tomorrow. For now, you may revert the change. Dinesh's main disagreement was with the wh*** word and the mention of the term "s*x**l assault". I agree with Kevin Mcgrath, having read both sacred-text source as well as the Critical Edition of Mahabharata. But for the sake of a peaceful consensus, you may replace wh*** with "unchaste" as given in the primary source sacred-text provided by him. Feel free to tag me, if you need any help in the future for Mahabharata related pages. :) (PatientWaiter (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
Kashmir conflict page
Hi RegentsPark
I spent a lot of time collection all the information and the references and editing the Kashmir conflict page so that it flow correctly with all the references. MarkH21 changed it back. Just let me know what is wrong with it and I will change those areas Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnleeds1: You shouldn't make wholesale changes to an article on a controversial subject. Suggest your changes, in small chunks, on the talk page, then, assuming no one objects, make them. If there are objections, discuss them and get consensus. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that RegentsPark. I did try to do it like that but the change was to make it flowed through the history of the conflict, in chronological order and to add links to the treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions, that went with those events. When I tried to do it in small bits, it did not read correctly. Even though MarkH21 has reverted the changes, they are still in the history of the article now, I have left a note in the talk section of the page for people to review my changes and let me know what needs changing. You are welcome to have a look at at them too. Once people have suggested any changes, I will make those changes. I will give people a few days to review them. They could also make changes after I have readded them. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnleeds1: Bear in mind that, in most cases, it is very difficult to deal constructively with one massive change. I once again suggest making small changes rather than one big one or you'll likely run into trouble. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that RegentsPark. I did try to do it like that but the change was to make it flowed through the history of the conflict, in chronological order and to add links to the treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions, that went with those events. When I tried to do it in small bits, it did not read correctly. Even though MarkH21 has reverted the changes, they are still in the history of the article now, I have left a note in the talk section of the page for people to review my changes and let me know what needs changing. You are welcome to have a look at at them too. Once people have suggested any changes, I will make those changes. I will give people a few days to review them. They could also make changes after I have readded them. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment
I have to leave you a note here,
Okay, I get it, you've had positive experiences with this user in the past, but please do not dismiss my complaints as 'pure disagreement' without knowing what I've had to be dealing with. What I see is just, as I said, persistent attempts to destroy an FAC, waste time, and prove a point, all driven by ego and agenda rather than goodwill and food for improvement. It's very easy to say, "just ignore", but if I do, it will look as though I didn't address what could have been a constructive set of comments (which it wasn't but how would anyone know?). So I have to go and respond to each one his comments, which are pure nitpicking which only rarely offer something constructive or actionable. Even HJ Mitchell went to read what he wrote and implied it was just a waste of time. Constant WP:OR, dismissing perfectly reliable sources, comparing it to Pather Panchali (a film from the 1950s which I reviewed for GA actually) with 'nah, it's not on that level, look how many books it uses and how many this article does'. If this is a constructive comment or a fair comparison, then what can I say. Just looking for pretexts for his initial gratuitous oppose is not a review. I thought I could move on to work on Shabana Azmi's article, and I'm still stuck with this thing. So yes, it's easy coming by a leaving a comment about him not being as bad as others say, but try reading his comments first, I don't think you'll find it as easy. Shahid • Talk2me 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
AN
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a non-issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Thanks. Will comment shortly.--regentspark (comment) 14:00, 6 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[1],[2] unlike the Rajput Rathore's who claim descent from the Suryavansha.[3] ".
References
- ^ Singh, Upinder (2009). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century (PB). Pearson India. p. 555. ISBN 978-93-325-6996-6.
- ^ Anthony T. Carter (1975). "Caste 'boundaries' and the principle of kinship amity: a Maratha caste Purana". Contributions to Indian Sociology. 9. Mouton: 130.
The Somavansha, for example, consists of nine gotras: Chavan, More, Pawar, Ganganaik, Rathod, Dhampal, Jagtap, Chaluke, and Kachre.
- ^ Indian India. Director of Public Relations, Chamber of Princes. 1 January 1945.
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)
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.
- Hi. I've reverted the article to what appears to be the last stable version so you should use the article talk page Talk:Yadav to discuss your proposed changes. --regentspark (comment) 00:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I am writing this here to you because there is a lot of discussion going on at the talk page of Yadav, and many objections which are valid have been placed by many Wikipedians, especially regarding the main photograph that shows the community in bad light, people have tried to replace it with better pictures, and even have provided with proper certification and reference, but this one person Sitush has been waging a war towards every Wikipedian who is trying to contribute to that page. It feels like he is literally owning tht sensitive community page and preventing any edit, also adding stuff that is derogatory and attacking under the belt. Sir, you can see what and how he responds to fellow Wikipedians, he even sometimes responds via slurs or casteist hate statements, his remarks are often something that does not suit a Wikipedian. Sir, he has been handling very biased all way long. Kindly help Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
WHY ARE YOU SILENT? Why are you not responding? Sitush is in direct conflict and is working as a hatemonger against a community. Why are you an administrator? Can’t you help to just change the main image of that page, that’s showing that particular community in dim light, that’s been constantly being uploaded by that person against a caste. YOU ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR, we consider you unbiased, kindly know that whatever sourced image we are using, that person is constantly removing it. Look into the matter for God’s sake, let Wikipedia be neutral. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. It is best that you discuss this on the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Revision in the article on Mughal-Maratha Wars
Hi friend, you had undone my revision and asked for appropriate sources in the article Mughal-Maratha Wars. I have undone your revision. I have added the sources as per your request. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake, Cheers. Charvak157 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
These above mentioned sources mistakenly got copied on this talk page. Please don't consider them. I have provided my sources in the article on Mughal-Maratha Wars. Thank you Charvak157 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Charvak157:. No worries. Sources are important in historical articles so thanks for adding those in. Best. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting Yaduvanshi Rajput
Thank you regentspark for protecting Yaduvanshi Rajput page, which was a victim of so many vandal attacks on it. But someone removed very first line of 3rd paragraph that stated "The origin of Chudasama Dynasty is from Abhira clan of Sind" and also it's reference from the book "Archeological Survey of India", Page no.10 :- https://books.google.com/books?id=bPNEAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Chudasama+Dynasty+abhira Maybe it was done while protection was being implemented on the page and this edit of unexplained removal of information might have been slipped out while checking. Please include it back. And again thanks for protecting page.
- Could you please take this to the article talk page? I'm not competent to evaluate edits in this area. Thanks.--regentspark (comment) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the article = Yaduvanshi Rajput, Mr.regentspark . I'm not familiar with wikipedia so I don't know more about all this but I know someone removed our(Chudasama) origin from Abhira clan. It was there a few days ago. Please if you can help with this one. Thank you sir.
- Just copy the comment above and paste it at Talk:Yaduvanshi Rajput. Someone there will look at it. I'll post a link to this discussion there and you can add your comment below that. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Urgent: 2020 stock market crash article
Hello RegentsPark! I need advice/assistance in recruiting other editors to help me record what's going on in the global financial markets on the 2020 stock market crash article for the foreseeable future. But I do not know where to find soldiers. Could you help? It's urgent because as of this writing the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 1,700 points today; its worst day since this past March. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: 1,800 points at close. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator. Not sure who would be interested. Though I follow the markets, I've given up trying to understand them so I won't be of any use at all. Sorry!--regentspark (comment) 20:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: But you're an administrator. You can't tell me where I could recruit other Wikipedia editors for such a project? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment. But, be warned, that project pages are not always well watched. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a distributed effort that works organically and centrality is not its strong suit. You could also look at the editors at Financial crisis of 2007–2008 and see who is active and ask them to chip in. --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Tipu Sultan article. Bias by RegentsPark
I made an edit to the intro in Tipu Sultan article adding about his religious policies (both critical and praising views). This is in line with another similar article Aurangzeb. You reverted it to an earlier edit which censored certain things and which was added without consensus, and you asked me to build consensus to make the edit. You did the same thing last month which makes me question if you are an involved admin and abusing your powers to push your POV. One third of the article discusses his religious policy and you are adamant on keeping a single line for it in the intro violating WP:DUE and WP:CENSOR. The article remains in a censored state for over a month because of you. Is your position "Article must be kept censored by default, until consensus is obtained"?
Edithgoche (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Edithgoche: I thought it was fairly clear but, please note that this was not an admin action.--regentspark (comment) 13:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I changed the title accordingly. Now, WP:CONSENSUS states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." My edit done on March 8 [1] stayed like that for two months, thus it has consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. On May 5, Aman.kumar,goel removed the edit [2] which I reverted back the same day. Thus, it is his edit that lacked consensus. Yet, you upheld his edit, struck down my edit and asked me to get consensus. This is biased judgment by you @RegentsPark: Edithgoche (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are seeing. Aman Kumar Goel responded on May 6th, Abecedare commented on May 5th twice, I could go on. With what logic are you saying that no one has commented? There is clearly no consensus for inclusion of your material. BTW, we should be discussing this on the article talk page and I'm going to move all this there. --regentspark (comment) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- This post is about your decision and not about the article, here is why I think your decision is biased. Aman Kumar Goel's edit was done at 11:41, 5 May 2020. I reverted it to my version at 15:44, 5 May 2020, which made his edit non-consensus. You asked me to get consensus at 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC). You reverted the article back to Aman's version at 17:27, 5 May 2020, by which point you have upheld a non-consensus edit(Aman's) over mine (a consensus edit that stayed for two months). Only after all of this did Abecedabre's first comment appear at 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC). Anyway, I am going to drop this and I am moving the issue to DRN. Edithgoche (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- DRN a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 13:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- This post is about your decision and not about the article, here is why I think your decision is biased. Aman Kumar Goel's edit was done at 11:41, 5 May 2020. I reverted it to my version at 15:44, 5 May 2020, which made his edit non-consensus. You asked me to get consensus at 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC). You reverted the article back to Aman's version at 17:27, 5 May 2020, by which point you have upheld a non-consensus edit(Aman's) over mine (a consensus edit that stayed for two months). Only after all of this did Abecedabre's first comment appear at 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC). Anyway, I am going to drop this and I am moving the issue to DRN. Edithgoche (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are seeing. Aman Kumar Goel responded on May 6th, Abecedare commented on May 5th twice, I could go on. With what logic are you saying that no one has commented? There is clearly no consensus for inclusion of your material. BTW, we should be discussing this on the article talk page and I'm going to move all this there. --regentspark (comment) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I changed the title accordingly. Now, WP:CONSENSUS states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." My edit done on March 8 [1] stayed like that for two months, thus it has consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. On May 5, Aman.kumar,goel removed the edit [2] which I reverted back the same day. Thus, it is his edit that lacked consensus. Yet, you upheld his edit, struck down my edit and asked me to get consensus. This is biased judgment by you @RegentsPark: Edithgoche (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Reliability of old sources for historical events
Hi regentspark, and I hope all is well! I'm somewhat curious why you removed two sources at Battle of Trichinopoly (1682) here with the comments not a valid source (more than 100 years old). Please use modern academic sources for historical events
and not a valid source (the person lived in the 16th/17th century). Please use modern academic sources for historical events
. I'm a little confused about this; I've never seen old academic sources rejected as unreliable; in fact my experience has been that they are considered better than nothing. Modern sources are, obviously, preferable, but is there a policy that says old ones are unacceptable? The only policy I'm aware of is WP:RS AGE, which would seem to contradict your statements: "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt." My understanding is that older sources are fine as long as there's no reason to doubt their reliability and if there aren't newer ones that supersede those. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, just wondering if I'm missing something. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Eddie891. While you are correct that we don't need to use only modern sources, any article that only uses old sources is suspect. This is specially the case for subcontinental sources because most older "histories" were written by lay people not historians. In this particular case, there are other issues as well. The first source (Joseph Bertrand) is a travel account (written in 1854) by a missionary and not a history. The second one, and I honestly have no idea if it actually exists, is apparently written by one of the kings involved in this battle which makes its objectivity highly dubious. It is unfortunate that the other sources in that article are all in a language other than English and that makes the material impossible to verify. --regentspark (comment) 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Tipu Sultan Dispute Resolution
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Edithgoche (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
For Hanuman Chalisa
Why you delete my edit (adding Hanuman Chalisa in odia language). I just add a new local odia language Hanuman Chalisa in the page. Subhrajit Mohanty (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GTAVCV20022013: This is the English Wikipedia and there is no point in adding large pieces of text in any other language. You will need to explain why the odia language text is essential inclusion in the article. --regentspark (comment) 12:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I add the chalisa in odia, because the people who knows odia language, can read it in their language for better understanding of the chalisa in odia and also they can chant it in odia without any problem. Subhrajit Mohanty (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's not a good reason. With that logic, we would have to add it in every language which would not make sense. Perhaps you should be doing this on the odia wiki? See odia language wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also, note that there is a link to the odia language wiki page on the topic in the left bar. Odia speakers (readers?) can click on it and get information in Odia there. --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hanuman Chalisa
Hello RegentsPark, May I know why you have deleted my Citation for Hanuman Chalisa? And why you also issued a "Warning" for this?
I just wanted to help community... Let me tell you, I've added Full Hanuman Chalisa Lyrics (English & Hindi both languages) reference, which is composed by Late Gulshan Kumar & Hariharan. And I've added Citation of Lyrics website for that.
So, can you please tell me why it is considered as spammy? And if it is, please let me know the correct way for that.
And yes, in my last contribution, I've added a New single song by Artist & linked it's Official YouTube Video link, and I've received warning & my edit was deleted by some wiki Robot (i think)!
I just want to tell you, my intensions are pure.
Thanks. Ajendra25 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ajendra25: Youtube video links are not considered kosher. Also the other link that you gave is not an acceptable external link. You should check WP:EL for what is acceptable. You may, of course, add references to songs but don't link to youtube or some other site. And do provide a reference (see WP:RS to get an idea of what constitutes a reference). Sorry, but that's the wikipedia way! --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me tell you, there was already a YouTube official link above my edit for the Akhil Sachdeva Singles song. And I've seen many YouTube links and other web citations used for reference. So why just only me? Not allowed to do so? I've checked some policies. Ajendra25 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It's my humble request, please remove a warning generated by you, as I think it's not a spam. Ajendra25 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the other youtube link as well. I'm sure you're editing in good faith but please be careful with external links. Generally, you should only add links to outside sources that are either serving as reliable sources or are elaborating on material in the article. And, never inline an external link in the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, I cant spell so excuse Ghandi. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm sorry for our disagreement lol, I posted evidence on the talk page of the Mhatma Gandi article. Have a nice afternoon (in Britain)
- No worries. Thanks for posting on the talk page. Ghandi, as a spelling, is considered derogatory for Gandhi, that's why I pointed it out. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I knew nothing about the derogatory term. Anyway, I won't add the racism section.-Thanks Ooh Saad (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Removal of sourced content
Dear RegentsPark, being a neutral editor, I invite you to kindly check out the recent contributions by Kami2018, who was already given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various articles. He is currently removing refs and reliably sourced content from articles related to the Khalji dynasty. For example, see these edits: [3], [4], [5], [6]. In his edit summary, he claimed that the source was "not credible" (?), although historian Vladimir Minorsky, who is cited, is in fact one of the most trusted academics on the subject. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- This reminds me of someone. @Arjayay: might have ideas. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Khestwol and regentspark, that editing pattern/subject matter is not familiar, and that account has been used for 18 months - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. @Khestwol:, I see this is an ongoing problem and have notified them of sanctions in this area. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Khestwol and regentspark, that editing pattern/subject matter is not familiar, and that account has been used for 18 months - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I loved ...
... "let there be time." The Bible was written before Relativity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello
Glad you noticed, please take a look at this article – Zhao Yunlei, it's subsections really are not same like other badminton Articles in which they can be closed or opened as for ease in reading the whole Article. Maybe it is difficult only for us Mobile viewers, but can it be solved? I failed to figure out if there is a template or something which is preventing to close subsections in that Article. Thankyou. Zoglophie (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Zoglophie: I don't know what you are referring to, are you sure you're pinging the right person?--regentspark (comment) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: I don't know how the message below myself is attached to the section I made, I am referring to you. The message of User:Fowler&fowler is attached to this thread. Probably an error. Please help me for the issue I stated above 🙏 Zoglophie (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Regents, can this problem be solved? Zoglophie (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Zoglophie:. Can you point me to an article that has the structure you want to see? I'm not sure what you're looking for but, with an example, I could try. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Regents for example this page, Gao Ling. We can easily close/open Subsections for ease in reading the article. But in Zhao Yunlei, it is different. Zoglophie (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay. I have a busy morning but will take a look this afternoon. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
June, 2020
Hello! You say Mahabharata is not reliable for Mahabharata's character. I wonder why? All secondary modern adaptions will tell you different stories. Most adaptions write rewrite the epic in their own way and also they created several fictional characters. For example Kavita Kane's Karna's wife is a fictional story. There are several books are like that. Aren't original sources most reliable? Ratan375 (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ratan375: Unfortunately, there is no original source. What you're dealing with is multiple, differing, translations (multiple, differing) of multiple, differeing versions of a text that was written (told, retold) eons ago. All we can go with is scholarly interpretations of what the texts say. --regentspark (comment) 11:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
ARCA
I have filed a request about an arbitration decision where you had participated. You can view it here. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)