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


Ok I understand not to add my opinion :) but everyone must think the same as me innit? :)


Hello utcursh bhai

  I am one of the followers know sant Rampalji. 

1 questions for you : Do you know them nearly? ?

If you are Hindu you must read Geeta 1st

Then compare with knowledge of sant Rampalji

You are not knowing them

Bhai duniya buri he is karana vecase me fase he .; unka ashram us jagah par he jaha par charo or unke virodhi he

Jab 2013 me ak din arya samaj valo ne karotha ashram par hamala kiya tab police ne firing ki or 3 ki death huvi jo paper me bhi aya tha

Uska arop sant Rampalji par dala gaya jo barwala me the naki karotha me

Tab me bahot dar gaya tha bahot yani bahot dar gaya tha ki ab unhe jail me dal diya jay ga

Par us rat vo mere dream me aye or ak avaj sunay di " Tumhare Guru Purna Bhrahma Kabirdev He Unhe Kuchh Nahi Hoga"

Or bahot log he jinhe Kabir saheb ke rup me darshan diye he

Bhai jo bhi likho soch samaj kar likhana

Or sachchay ku chanbin kar lena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sat3171 (talkcontribs) 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Spammer you reverted

At [1] - taken to ANI before I saw this, thanks for spotting it. Adding copyvio from English language sources and then patrika.com 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)

File:Highhazelsband2014.jpg

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

Mail-message-new.svg
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)

A REQUEST

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. https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up, https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n132/mode/2up, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false, 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 (i.e. military and aristocratic 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)

Hi bro do you think that military and aristocratic community are shudra. No its not. This particular statement (i.e. babhan/bhumihar were enumerated as shudra in british census report) in jeffrey witsoe book is wrong which is evident from the book i am citing below. If you find any British census report backing the aforesaid statement then i will willingly accept that. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url== https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up) (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress & url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) I feel that British census report statement or claim can be verified from the same census report not from mere supposition of an individual.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sikh Gurus

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Sikh Gurus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gangwar

Ds gangwar has learned nothing.[2] He also edited comments of others,[3] I have warned him too. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Assam attacks

Have created this; would appreciate if you could add more: 2014 Assam attacks. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014