User talk:Utcursch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Dare send messages like this. You are the cause of Vandalism not me,...&*%$4@###banged up head

Spammer you reverted

At [1] - taken to ANI before I saw this, thanks for spotting it. Adding copyvio from English language sources and then as a fake source (as often doesn't contain all the details). Clear COI although outing is bad. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permission templates

Hi, Utcursch. :) Thanks for handling the permission for Richard W. Suscha. I noticed when processing the listing at WP:CP, however, that you used the template for media ({{OTRS permission}}). The one for text is different - {{ConfirmationOTRS}}. It makes a pretty big difference because the image permission tag assumes that the source and the license are identified on the file page. :) With text, we have to identify both. I've corrected it, but wanted to point out the difference for future reference! Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! utcursch | talk 13:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permission templates on Commons

Utcursch, You have added several c:template:Permission OTRS to images on Commons. However instead of adding permission to the page you replaced the content of the page and license with OTRS template, see this example edit. I will clean it up, but please be careful since many files without license are being deleted from Commons with little time spent on research related to the causes. --Jarekt (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for helping out on OTRS. Could you make sure that when you accept permissions, you ensure that the image has a valid copyright tag? Thanks, Microchip08 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Utcursch. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Manoj Khurana (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


bhumihar brahmin articles please added then also add sir bhagwan ke liye

Bhumihars have been the traditional priests in Prayag, at Vishnupad Mandir in Gaya as Gayawar Pandas and in the adjoining districts like Hazaribagh. (with refernce it is true please please please add this if it is not added then bhumihars will never know the fact that they are also priests brahmins in some places) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyaprakash ji (talkcontribs) 11:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a verifiable, reliable source for this? If yes, you can add it yourself. utcursch | talk 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey bro you have not included concerning British census which clearly mentioned about the enumeration of babhans (old name of bhumihar) as martial race in 1891 and there are enough book suggesting that they were enumerated as priestly brahmins after that census. British census have never mentioned babhans as sudras. Babhan was the name used for this very bhumihar brahmin community during British era. Even you can find out the Mr. herbert risley statement which misunderstood babhan to be offshoot of rajput which has been explained in the book by pandit yogendranath bhattacharya. He(yogendra nath) has mentioned all the rumours and jealousy comments of some people regarding bhumihar brahmin(babhan). Please go through it. book which you have mentioned i.e.(Democracy against Development: Lower-Caste Politics and Political Modernity ...

By Jeffrey Witsoe) has mentioned babhan were enumerated as shudra in british census is a totally false and fictitious claim. Please mention British census claiming this thing before writing this fact. These days i am reading many fictions stories made by many persons regarding babhan (bhumihar) community without any historical account. It is totally insane.,,, It is unfortunate that what ever rumour and fictitious claim you encounter consider as truth and paste it on most reliable website and Historic evidences you do not accept and consider it to be caste-glorifying. Britishers have considered babhans to be martial class till 1891 and thereafter enumerated them as mere priestly brahmin. Bhumihar is a new name definitely popularised by some big zamindar because bhumihar (landlord-ship ) name suited them. please mention something sensible and credible account rather that core assumptive assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that they were enlisted as Shudras, but that they were included in same category as some of the Shudra castes -- that's what the ref says. utcursch | talk 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014