Talk:Sharada Peeth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 2 February 2022

Sharada Peeth was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 12, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
October 25, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sharada Peeth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Pakistan B‑class Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism B‑class High‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture B‑class Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sharada Peeth. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sharada Peeth at the Reference desk.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir 2409:4043:20C:8A38:EF3E:5579:FF49:3CD7 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status

I do not believe this article to meet GA standards and will re-assess. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, the two of you can explain the content of this article and the accompanying citations — do you disagree with any of my recent edits to this article? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professional life has ramped up so I don’t have the time to help right now. Given the tone of the edit summaries and the message on my talk page, I can’t tell if you genuinely have questions or just want me to defend my edits. If the former, you’re welcome to ask them and if I get the time, I’ll endeavour to reply. If the latter, you’re welcome to improve this article just like any other on Wikipedia - it doesn’t belong to me and I’m not attached to the GA designation. Best wishes, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The message on your talk-page is an AC/DS alert. The specific language has been set by the higher ups and I didn't tweak it.

If you have suggestions for improvements to edit summary, please share them.

I want you to explain how you drafted an article with multiple violations of text-cite integrity (and cleared it past a GA reviewer). Wikipedia has no deadline - so, take your time. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to participate in an inquisition. If you see problems with the article, go ahead and fix them. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to defend; I thought the article very good, and think Kohlrabi Pickle a good and able editor, open to and receptive of input, so I passed it. I am but a human. If you can improve the article, please do so. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses beggar belief. Off to delisting. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sharada Peeth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Delisted for violating criteria 2 pursuant to this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To TrangaBellam

TrangaBellam- Yes, so what you wanted to say? We can have good discussions hereJust another Wikipedian editor (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can have good discussions but you need to explain (WP:BURDEN) your reversal of my edits. Do you believe that I was in the wrong? Or maybe, my edit-summaries made no sense? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Tranga, I never said that You were wrong. But maybe, our opinions are different. Anyway, my edits aren't very different from the last good reviewed versions where it was nominated for a good one [1]. You can match and see the key differences in that.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: Disruption, even if not caused by malfeasance, remains disruption. I am inclined to bring them to AE unless you have better means. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are pinging him instead of discussing. So, it means that you don't want discussion to have.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted you in the talk page to resolve this issue, yet you refused to join the discourse. In addition, medium language was used in the article, but everything was changed in October.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only language that has been used in our article, since inception, is English. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, I haven't even reinstalled the GA icon, please revisit my edits, which I'm sure you didn't do properly(accidentally).Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not but reverted all of my preceding edits, that formed the casus belli of delisting. thank you for the answer. Hi! daxserver, so I have reported him joining the discourses, but he refused instead. (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all very thanks for accepting that I didn't do it. And even if you see my previous revisions, I was well aware of this.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for today, let's find another day for the remaining conversations. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: @Just another Wikipedian editor I can understand restoring the last stable versions, to a GA passed one in this case. But TrangaBellam has put reasonable edit summaries explaining her removal of content pertaining to many sources being unreliable, misrepresented and fringe. But your revert or any replies here didn't address why they are not unreliable, not misrepresented and not fringe. WP:BURDEN actually says it is the editor's responsibility to demonstrate verifiability when restoring the content. Perhaps you could search for some related reliable sources and add content from them? If you find any issues with TrangaBellam's edits, please explain so :) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. Hi! DaxServer, so I have asked him to join the discourse, But she rejected my request and started complaining about me to another. It may be that I and he/she have another view of how we have perceived it. But still, I think Tranga has removed several statements that should not have been removed. Wiki is the public forum where both the communities have the right to add their opinion and I think this is the most reasonable and broadest flexibility of Wikipedia. Regards Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due respect still, I didn't attempt to revise my edits until we both reached an agreement on this. But, Tranga is still making threatening statements of complaining about me.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 :::::::[[My 2 cents]]: @[[User:Just another Wikipedian editor|Just another Wikipedian editor]] I can understand restoring the last stable versions, to a GA passed one in this case. But TrangaBellam has put reasonable edit summaries explaining her removal of content pertaining to many sources being unreliable, misrepresented and fringe. But your revert or any replies here didn't address why they are not unreliable, not misrepresented and not fringe. [[WP:BURDEN]] actually says it is the editor's responsibility to demonstrate verifiability when restoring the content. Perhaps you could search for some related reliable sources and add content from them? If you find any issues with TrangaBellam's edits, please explain so :) — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/DaxServer|contribs]]) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 ::::::::: Thank you for the comment. Hi! [[user:DaxServer|DaxServer]], so I have asked him to join the discourse, But she rejected my request and started complaining about me to another. It may be that I and he/she have another view of how we have perceived it. But still, I think Tranga has removed several statements that should not have been removed. Wiki is the public forum where both the communities have the right to add their opinion and I think this is the most reasonable and broadest flexibility of Wikipedia. Regards [[User:Just another Wikipedian editor|Just another Wikipedian editor]] ([[User talk:Just another Wikipedian editor|talk]]) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
+:::::::::Due respect still, I didn't attempt to revise my edits until we both reached an agreement on this. But, Tranga is still making threatening statements of complaining about me.[[User:Just another Wikipedian editor|Just another Wikipedian editor]] ([[User talk:Just another Wikipedian editor|talk]]) 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)