User talk:RegentsPark

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 09:40, May 3, 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Why one sided !!?

I want to know why many Wikipedia pages have only one sided view!!? SakiraTaqila (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@SakiraTaqila: If you think a page has only one sided views, you should use the talk page to explain why you think so. Whatever you do, please do read WP:V and WP:RS first because Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia. Material without reliable sources will be deleted. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Are you the office bearer of Wikipedia? SakiraTaqila (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And what are the parameters of being reliable, because I see some citation are vague but still protected by Wiki staff SakiraTaqila (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@SakiraTaqila: I am not an office bearer of Wikipedia (and office bearers have little control over content). Wikipedia is a community built encyclopedia but everyone must follow the policies and guidelines that the community has developed. If an edit is not in accordance with those policies and guidelines, any editor can remove it. You should go through these policies and guidelines if you plan on continuing to edit. If you need help, ask at the tea house. Aabout sourcing, generally sources that are recognized news source (e.g., The New York Times, The Hindu) are reliable as also are peer reviewed academic journals. When in doubt, leave a note on the article talk page or ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a welcome note on your talk page. The links may be helpful. Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at this

Please have a look at the Talk:Ezhava page, irrational allegations are going on. I believe this is in response to the recent article redirect (Thiyyar History to Ezhava). Obviously, there are some ongoing Thiyya PR works on numerous articles and is handled by anonyms and probable sock farms [1] [2] [3],[4], [5]. Also, these might be a part of their strategy to get back their Thiyya page by projecting both as incongruous to one another. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Outlander07: I can see that this is becoming problematic. I've dropped notifications on the two registered editors - Worldofknowledge121 and Redbutterfly0987. You might want to investigate if they are socks of Kambliyil (@Ponyo:).--RegentsPark (comment) 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems they are unrelated to User:Kambliyil as the topic is not one of his edit interests. For me, these guys are a part of a campaign against the ethnic Thiyya vandals who want supremacy over Ezhavas and into caste promotion on Wikipedia articles. As I said above it would also be the plan of Thiyya POV sock farms to get back their redirected page by splitting the Ezhava article. Sitush can help here. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought Kambliyil had created thiyyar history but I was wrong. 365Arithamatical study created that. They've been warned anyway, so let's see what happens. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note

He is surely trolling. and a prostitute engaging in sexual work such as penis vagina insertion - I missed this. WTAF. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice that @SpacemanSpiff: commented on SumeetJi's talk page. Hopefully, this is now under control.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Baidya page

Hello RegentsPark.I am sorry to bother you.An user named Advaita2222 is active in edit warring in the Baidya page.I have requested him to initiate discussion in the talk page.But, He is repeatedly reverting the last consensus version which was approved by one of the Senior editors Ekdalian.I have warned him.I have informed this to Ravensfire , who is a pending edit reviewer,But come to You also as You are an admin.Can You please help to handle this.Thanks.RegardsAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Abhishek Sengupta 24: Looks like LukeEmily is cleaning this up. I'm busy in RL for the next few days but will check in often.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks for Your prompt reply.I am grateful to You for your decision to check the page often.Thanks from the bottom of my heart.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello RegentsPark I am extremely sorry to bother you in Baidya page a person named TrangaBellam editing and deleting sources. You know a constructive discussion is going on the talk page of Baidya. LukeEmily is helping a lot. This person is editing, ignoring sources which he himself attached. Apart from this he citing badly with out page number. Some are non verifiable. Can you please help me to check his edits. ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC).

I can't comment on content issues so you'll need to deal with this on the talk page. Please do also take heed of my note on your talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. At least you take care my requests, it's enough for me. Have a great day. Thanks Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello RegentsPark.I am extremely sorry to bother you.I am worried about the Baidya article.It's caste article and hence under hyper sensitive coverage.Many sources added by TrangaBellam is under Paywall,which can be used under wikipedia guideline.These articles are not easily verifiable.I and LukeEmily have requested him that, under WP:QUOTE he should quote the sensitive and biased content like "He is telling Baidyas sudra but many reliable authors mention them ex brahmin or fallen brahmin".His answer to Luke is "I have a general apathy against using quotes" see here.Apart from this, he is involving in removing reliably sourced contents of myne ( see here and here ) and LukeEmily ( see here ).Today he added content which is false according to the source.He mentioned Baidyas were below the kayastha and above vaisya, which is false. see the journal page 319.Latter it is corrected by our fellow editors see the changes.I have checked his talk page and found he has a record of disrupting editing see here.After calling editor Ekdalian, I got no result,Hence come to you.He is calling Eminent Historians as "Fanciful"see here.I have complete faith on your judgement.Thanks Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Abhishek Sengupta 24: I'm probably not going to be able to look at this today (RL issues). But, @TrangaBellam:, if you're using sources behind a paywall, do make sure you provide the necessary quotes to back up any content changes you make. LukeEmily can also take a look. Everyone should aim for consensus on the talk page if any edit is contested. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks for your prompt reply and advice.I am obliged to you. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Literally, this person named TrangaBellam using Bṛhaddharma Puraṇas reference which was written in the 13th century in every line. Most of his sources were written by the rivals of the Baidyas(kayasthas,priestly brahmins).and he is deleting statements written by neutral authors along with citations and giving the baidya article a completely new look which was before edited by One of the senior admin named sitush. please, sir, I request you to take action against him. he already misquoted some lines and after getting caught he is telling it was just a human error. almost every reference given by him is so hard to verify. The baidya article is very sensitive and I request you to look at that because you are so senior and respected on Wikipedia.Sir I believe you will serve the justice. thank you Safron710 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Safron710: The article talk page is the best place to discuss the reliability of sources or "neutrality" of authors of cited content. You can also take your doubts to WP:RSN. I looked over the talk page and it appears that the disputes are over content and sourcing and these are best addressed on the talk page or through the dispute resolution process. My suggestion is to clearly specify the content that is in disupte, give clear reasons why the sources are not reliable, and look for consensus. If a consensus does not emerge, then look to WP:RSN for specific source reliability (e.g., to see if Banglapedia is RS), or to WP:DRN for content disputes. At this point, I don't see a behavioral issue that needs admin action. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't find accounts, specifically created to oppose my and Ekdalian's edits, a "behavioral issue"? This is the latest rant.

@LukeEmily: If I were you, I'd file a WP:SPI. But, I'm going to go ahead and extended protect the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell each newbie that I am not using Puranas as a source but their analysis by modern scholars (published by Oxford University Press, Chicago University Press, and others)? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that. You're doing a good job explaining this so I'm not worried. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For an example, over here it has been claimed that I had question[ed] the neutrality of an author because he/she belongs to that particular community and treat[ed] it as unreliable in a prejudiced way. I asked him to provide evidence in support but nothing came.

Over the same thread, female Professors of history, who have published multiple books with Brill, Manohar etc. are claimed to be "young guest professors" whose views don't matter much. The caste-details of Projit Bihari Mukharji, Martin Meyerson Professor in History & Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, are emphasized to project him as anti-Baidya. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone is demonstrating a pattern of questioning the neutrality of authors based on caste, they will be sanctioned. Could you please provide diffs rather than pointing to the discussion? Walls of text are impossible to parse. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the diff where they claim (without evidence) that I had question[ed] the neutrality of an author because he/she belongs to that particular community and treat[ed] it as unreliable in a prejudiced way.

This is the diff where they write, ...This is all but a joke. And Hiteshranjan Sanyal and PB Mukharji, both Bengali Brahmins, simply quote Brihaddharma Purana (not only Kayasthas, all the three castes are rivals of each other, something you pretend to be ignorant of, or at the best surprisingly ignorant of)...

The above diff also includes refusal to read a cited source (Curley; open source) and engaging in meaningless commentary on how a line shall be removed, if not categorically described in any of the reference cited. Minutes later, in the next edit to the talk-page, a set of obtuse remarks prove that they had indeed read Curley. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

MR. Regentspark thank you for your valuable suggestions. even after your advice TrangaBellam is not providing quotes in his editings. he is adding some sensitive words like "raped", "illegitimate" without giving the quotes. Please check his edits. and once again thank you for your suggesions.Safron710 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Safron710: Please provide diffs. Without diffs, I cannot evaluate anything. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

MR. Regentspark check here "Ashvin had a Brahmin pilgrim raped, and she (along with the illegitimate son) were driven out by her husband" he cited that statement with reference no 14, but he didn't quote that specific line neither he provided any readable link along with the page no .Even there are many more but I am just waiting for his reply on the talk page as advised by you. thanks Safron710 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL requires me to neither make accessible a resource for all editors nor provide quotes.

Majumdar, Ganguly, and Hazra write, Asvinikunara, the son of Sun-god, forcibly ravished the wife of a Brahmana while she was on a pilgrimage, and a son was immediately born. She returned with the child to her husband and reported everything to him. The angry Brahmana drove her out with her son.

What does forcibly ravish mean? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if material is not verifiable, it can be removed and that the onus of verification is on the person adding material. Merely adding a citation is not always enough for controversial material. (There is a good reason why WP:PAYWALL points you to WP:OFFLINE.) --RegentsPark (comment) 03:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the page. What more evidence do you need? This is a lucky find but Internet Archive has hardly scanned all books held in my library. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. I searched for and had no problem finding a pdf of the the Majumdar book online and verifying the content. @Safron710:, did you try to look for an online version of the book? --RegentsPark (comment) 03:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TrangaBellam for providing that source. and Mr RegentsPark yes I also searched but unfortunately could not find that. once again thank you guys for your efforts and time. Safron710 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

About the word "forbidden":

Furui writes in detail (p. 204, last paragraph) about how Venu proceeded to have his subjects marry with total disregard for varna rules despite Brahmins advising him that it is a path for adharma and way to hell. Eventually, Venu will be deposed by Gods for facilitating these mixed marriages and their union, and a Vishnu reincarnate installed (p205, first paragraph). Even he will fail to restore dharma and be plagued with a famine, until the samkaras are integrated back. (p205, second paragraph)

The story is a classic retelling of the Dharma-Danda tension. And, unions across varna was forbidden in this version of the myth. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been pinged at the talkpage. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• he is refusing to add quotes or links in the article see here he is not even obeying you. --Safron710 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

INDICSCRIPTS and Urdu

Hi, I recently removed some Bengali and Urdu text from the article Jama Masjid, Nerul with WP:INDICSCRIPTS as justification. However a user added back the Urdu text saying that it did not count as an Indic script. To my understanding the policy applies to Urdu as well (you once reverted my edit of adding Urdu text to Charminar's lead with this justification), but I'm unable to find an explicit policy on Indic languages that use non-Indic scripts. Hoping for some guidance on this if possible! Thanks. Gowhk8 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gowhk8:. I've clarified the meaning of Indic scripts at WP:INDICSCRIPTS and reverted the TheAafi's addition of the urdu script. Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi RegentsPark.. you have recently informed the user Arthur1277 about the discretionary sanctions. Recently many socks have come up in the article on Baidya, and all of them have been blocked as the sock of User:Banglawikit / User:Bengaliwikipro. Arthur1277 has been editing Talk:Baidya and related articles; his edits clearly indicate he is not a new user, rather a sock of Banglawikit/Bengaliwikipro. I would like to request you to please get the same checked, and take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right. About as obvious as they come. I've blocked them. You might want to start an SPI next time, it will be easier to catch future socks. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, RegentsPark. Ekdalian (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks! 14 years - I guess I'm in for the long haul!--RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Urgent action needed

Hi, Regentspark.. Recently I have come across a different type of edit on "Ramachandra Deva I" wiki page. The creator of the article added unnecessary sources to confuse editors and to push his POV. The claims made in the Personal life/Early life section actually have no mention in any of the Sources. I have corrected the claims as per the sources but there are chances that my edits will be reverted. Hope you will check the references and Claims as it will help to deal with such edits in future. Thank you Peacepks (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Attacks

Can you take a look at User_talk:TrangaBellam#Mr.? Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What does this mean? The talk-page reads like a forum. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the first editor and warned the second. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @RegentsPark: for your advice. I would surely take care of your advice. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi RegentsPark, you have recently warned user ‎Dr.SunBD for his edits on Talk:Baidya. Please have a look at his edits (which I have reverted), articles on Vaidya‎, Sena dynasty, Maulika Kayastha. All are POV edits meant for the glorification of his own caste; he has been doing this for quite some time now in spite of several warnings. Would request you to take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: I'm not sure what I can do here. The editor is sourcing their content so you'll probably need to show either that the sources are not reliable or that the statements or undue. @SpacemenSpiff: who might have a better idea.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: (better!)--RegentsPark (comment) 17:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Change the page name

From Nishtha to Nistha. Nishtha Chakraborty . Wikifulness (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done --RegentsPark (comment) 18:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikifulness (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Manage the two

Subha Venkatesan and Venkatesan Subha. 2 pages on same person. Wikifulness (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wikifulness: I assume Subha Venkatesan is the correct ordering? --RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. So delete "Venkatesan Subha". Wikifulness (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected it. Note that the India Today article appears to be about Subha Venkatarman. Is that a different athlete or an alternate spelling? --RegentsPark (comment) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Subha Venkataraman is a cricker https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/venkataraman-subha-54187.

Subha Venkatesan is an athlete. The newspapers did huge mistakes to identity them correctly. Wikifulness (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

AS24

Now we have Abhishek Sengupta 24 misrepresenting D C Sircar to claim that he finds them to be Brahmanas, when Sircar states something otherwise. When I asked for a quote, he chooses to give some warped logic where the view in Ambasthapurana become Sircar's. If that was not enough, he is now bringing colonial anthropologists like Alexander Wise.

At this point of time, we need to realise that the editor has no other job other than advocating that Baidyas be mentioned as Brahmins. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"At this point of time, we need to realise that the editor has no other job other than advocating that Baidyas be mentioned as Brahmins" is this not a personal attack?? once you already misquoted a line and after getting caught you told us that was only a human mistake,thats why admin told you to provide quotes with your citations, you are not doing a favor to us, understand that.TrangaBellam it is a very sensitive caste article not a random car or bus article you have to respect that ok.--Safron710 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

ambasthas and baidyas are the same and they have the same profession already mentioned by many authors. you are adding some purans references on baidya page that described ambasthas as sudras, but when ambasthas are mentioned as brahmins or brahma-kshatriyas by some scholars you are showing a problem regarding that??Safron710 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Safron710, that's not a personal attack. Looking at this and this, it seems like a reasonable conclusion. I'm pinging @SpacemanSpiff: to take a look. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yesterday we had LukeEmily make a set of quite-agreeable comments in response to a dozen pings from AS24 and BengHistory. 30 minutes later, today, AS24 repeats his arguments about how Baidyas are Brahmins (as of now). There is no real engagement except posting the same few sources cyclically and repeating the same point. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am telling that Baidyas are sudra is controversial. I have given many sources and here I am giving another reliable source. Please check it Pages 145-146.In calcutta sanskrit college only Brahmins and Baidyas are allowed and sudras are not allowed. It is clear indication that Baidyas are not considered sudra.Today He provided a 1960 book. Where as I have provided latest books in talk section. Here I have provided another one.I can't understand while I am talking with him in talk section also engaging Ekdalian, another editer then why he is coming here and disturbing you? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

mr.RegentsPar Deliberately making a mistake three times(TangaBellam) Then let the accused write Not indicating anything else? Sources that have not been read have been inserted Are these shots normal or abnormal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BHATTA4 (talk • contribs) B06:55, July 28, 2021 (UTC)

literally, that guy trangabellam made THREE clear-cut controversial mistakes. all three mistakes were made to REDUCE the status of baidyas.is that not indicating something??? from the beginning he is using some purans reference to write this caste article. now he used a 1953 old reference over the modern reference to describe the status of baidyas. doest that make any justice to a caste which is so respected in Bengal?? I mean he used the sudra word 5 or 6 times by using some purans reference which was written in the 13th century by some priestly brahmins as a tool for some hidden works. The sanskrit college allowed only brahmins and baidyas to enroll there and restricted Sudras from admission. doest that not indicate the status of baidyas??but he completely removes that from the article's main section. many respected authors mentioned baidyas as ex brahmins, semi brahmins, equal to brahmins but he has problems with these also. last but not the least PURANS are myths and should not be considered in this sensitive caste article. Safron710 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Safron710, I would like a list of the THREE clear-cut controversial mistakes [that] REDUCE[D] the status of baidyas. You fail to provide diffs and you are ending up at WP:AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1.you misquoted baidyas are below kayasthas 2.you misquoted RC Majumdar rejected Dutt

  give me some time I will add more mistakes of you Safron710 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The article (Baidya) talk page has become a playground of WP:SPAs, fighting with neutral & genuine editors like TrangaBellam only in order to glorify their caste. Also, would request for a CU for user Safron710; seems like a sock of User:Bengaliwikipro / User:Banglawikit. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

you already have made a complaint against me of socking.stop doing this in every talk page.I am not a sock of anyone.