Jump to content

User talk:TrangaBellam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14.139.114.213 (talk) at 05:16, 28 December 2021 (→Alt news). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, TrangaBellam, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Persecution of Hindus discussion

Hi TrangaBellam, welcome to Wikipedia. At Talk:Persecution of Hindus, you are referring to citations by numbers. Without knowing which revision of the article you are speaking of, those numbers don't have any meaning. Can you go to the history page, pick out the revision that you are commenting on, and add a link to that revision at the top of the discussion? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Done. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Do you plan to respond? Not sure how to proceed since two editors asked me to get consensus (by reversing my edits) via edit summaries but have not made any objections known over the talk-page. Joshua and Regents seem to be supportive, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It is not my page. Like you, I am also waiting for the other side to come back with a response.
In general, I think some discussion is warranted regarding the Delhi Sultanate etc. it can't be removed entirely. There are issues like jizya, the prohibition of temple construction (even if it wasn't rigidly enforced) etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely and will prepare a rewrite. However, I do not find anything minimally salvageable from the current mess. Wait for a couple days or so? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please add reference sections

If you add a reference to an unreferenced article, you need to add a Reference section and put a Reflist template in it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ty. Seems same like notelist. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Talikota

TrangaBellam, I have explained my edits on the page in a new section of the talk page of the article, here. I hope it clarifies your doubts. If you still have any issues, we can discuss it there; I request that you do not revert before that. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 2021

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Priya Ramani, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: can you help out? This user is not replying to talk-page messages, copying quotes from all sources and reverting me as a vandal, when reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you forgot to tag the editor :-) And once you see that your content is being reverted it is better to pause before undoing the revert. Vikram 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can't revert edits in quick succession and expect something to happen. You may need to give warning messages and write on their user talk pages for them to take notice. If you need to get more editors invoved, please use WT:INDIA. WP:CANVASSING editors like you did to me, won't help because the other editors won't generally listen to a canvassed editor. And we can't edit the main page in any case, having been cavassed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Priya Ramani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vikram 20:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to close the 3RR complaint and discuss. Vikram 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read about canvassing now, okay. Sorry. I know about the notice board. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing the complaint. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks :-) BTW it might be better to make small changes to content rather than large ones. This way there is adequate scope for productive engagement. Vikram 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry about that revert and warning. I had not fully caffeinated, and got your edit mixed up with that of Pakistan4ever. Possibly (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No worries. Mistakes happen. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Truschke moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Audrey Truschke, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 07:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HitroMilanese, I will be moving the article back. Why did you delete it without discussion? If you believe the article do not pass our notable policies, convince the community in an deletion discussion. Which information was unsourced? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF TrangaBellam (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, the article is moved to draftspace so that you may demonstrate notability per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. The current version is not suitable for mainspace as notability has not been demonstrated. Draftspace gives you opportunity to improve the article, but if you move it back to mainspace then I will have to take it to AfD where it is likely to be deleted. Thanks. Hitro talk 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:HitroMilanese if you wish, take it to AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you don't understand how Wikipedia works. There is difference between draftifying and deletion. The purpose of draftifying the articles is making them suitable for mainspace after required improvements. You improved a one-liner unsuitable stub within 58 minutes of draftifying. Great. See WP:NPPDRAFT. If it meant for AfD, I would have taken it on sight. Hitro talk 09:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, HitroMilanese is a new page reviewer, and as such they would be experienced in deciding whether new pages qualify. Edit warring with them would not be a good practice. Rather, find out what is needed to make it a viable page and see if you can make it so. Is the author notable for anything other than the one book we are aware of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kautilya3, I did not edit war and I am prepared to defend it at a deletion discussion. Have you checked the article? She has two works with multiple reviews. And, she won the John F. Richards Prize in South Asian History by AHA, a very reputed body. Also, her work on Aurangzeb is the poorest. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things to watch

(talk page stalker) See Preferences --> Notifications. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, kautilya3. solved! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Thanks anyway for adding all this excellent content about the pre-Muslim dynasties of Kashmir, which were in great need of such attention. I didn't even suspect there was so much about them. That's great! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is nice. Congratulations TrangaBellam! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TrangaBellam (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrites

Sylheti language

Please do not revert without discussing this. Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soibam Rebika Devi

I declined the prod. It's best to take this one to AFD for deletion input from the wider community. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading pleasure

Comes with a cute edit summary as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Quora would have appreciated his efforts better. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Turkmenportal

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Turkmenportal, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!--Tautomers(T C) 04:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

redacted ds-alert message as I did not realize it was given before. LukeEmily (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been notified less than a year ago. The relevant policy notes, Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Please be cautious. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed it. I have redacted the alert.LukeEmily (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhonsale - warning - deletion of sources and quotes

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Bhonsale, you may be blocked from editing. .LukeEmily (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rathore deletion of sourced content

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rathore, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

@LukeEmily: If I see you abusing templates once again, I will be asking for a topic-ban. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead please, ask for a topic ban on me right now. You have been abusing caste pages and several users have been warning you. I will be asking for a topic ban shortly and will be reporting you to admins. Intentional deletion of sourced content is not acceptable.LukeEmily (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OUP

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library#Oxford_bibliographies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

Glad you found the discussion amusing. Tewdar (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions concerning COVID-19

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Your edits/content removal from ZyCoV-D are clearly covered by discretionary sanctions concerning COVID-19. They are not a part of WP:NOTNEWS here. They are compiled as per recommended structure followed for COVID-19 vaccines articles. Run n Fly (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at ZyCoV-D shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Run n Fly (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have been here longer than you are. Please go a bit slow. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, I have been working on WP:COVID-19 since the beginning of my account. I am aware of WP:MEDRS and others. Also, see WP:SENIORITY. I will not add anything and wait for others to respond. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 1st year anniversary

Happy 1st year anniversary of your stay on wikipedia
Congrats! Ratnahastin(t.c) 07:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pr.

Danish Siddiqui

You have reverted my edit in death section of Photojournalist Danish Siddiqui without giving the reason I have also provided the source of my edit. Thanks Bharat0078 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RX request -- An Indian Magazine

Regarding your request at WP:RX, you can check this link, the website of Punjab Digital Library. They have scanned some volumes of The Illustrated Weekly of India. I haven't checked if the volume you have requested is available there. Regards. --Gazal world (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallow

Are you aware of the social system of Bengal? অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your name appears a series of boxes. I am aware to a certain extent, having read some secondary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.

Stop kayastha propaganda, maintain neutrality অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা, Ok. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baidya article

Your sources are very hard to verify.In caste article why you are editing using those sources??? Safron710 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HelloTrangaBellam multiculturalism is the book, you gave aproval in the 'Dispute' Section of talk page. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raj's verson Saumyajit Ray in his book mentions that, "There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname.But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Service".Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Danish Siddiqui. No source mentions that "BJP supporters reveled his death and called it karma".  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 10:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KyloRen3, please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. The source was cited right after the line and I have quoted from the source at talk-page. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, thanks for clarifying.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 12:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bats in Wuhan Lab

HelloTrangaBellam, please explain your revert of my edit on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Thanks! Pakbelang (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakbelang, I will write a note at the talk-page, later. Check the archives - this has been probably discussed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, thanks. I look forward to it and will respond there if needed. Cheers! --Pakbelang (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
cc:shibbolethink TrangaBellam (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, I've gone through the talk archives and I did find some inconclusive discussion of this topic w.r.t. DRASTIC a few weeks back. The article in The Australian that I cite was not mentioned at that time. I note that you added a citation to that same article on the DRASTIC page, which seems appropriate. Since you seem to have no specific issue with the wording or the source, would you please restore my edits? Cheers! --Pakbelang (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is regarding this wiki-voice claim? [1]
Pakbelang, an important thing to note about RSes: We must cite the original source, not the piped through source when something is syndicated or rebroadcast without any editorial reinterpretation or re-authorship. See WP:NEWSORG. In this case, the original source is actually Sherri Markson on Sky News [2][3] [4], not The Australian. For each use of a source like this (TV talk show), we must determine the reliability of the journalist and the accuracy of her reporting re: this topic. Is she an expert on this topic? Does she have a track record of high quality reporting on it? What do other say? The answer is that she is highly partisan and unreliable, having repeated demonstrated falsehoods on more than one occasion: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
The next question we must ask, is what claim is this source supporting? It's relatively uncontroversial that there was once, several years ago, a small BSL2 bat colony at the WIV (all bat colonies would be at least BSL2 because we know these animals are wild and often carry BSL2 pathogens, for the same reason monkey colonies are kept at BSL2). There is a primary source demonstrating that a 12 animal colony existed in 2015 (relatively small by bat colony standards):[10]
However, if the claim is, as in this revert, that this bat colony should be the focus of investigations for how the virus got into humans, that is a very different claim. Especially since it is a wiki-voice claim, not an attributed one. There are several claims wrapped up in there. By saying this is a potential source of infection, we are also saying that the PPE was not appropriate, that the laboratory was not appropriately screening its employees, that they were not reporting transmission-risk events, etc. etc.
We would also be saying that this content is DUE for the article (i.e. that the sum total of reliable sources covering investigations also mention in a substantial way the existence of a bat colony). To my reviewing of the literature, that is not true. Only unreliable tabloid sources or repeated syndicated sources of the same say this.
As an analogy, we don't use the fact that the Zoo in Wuhan had bats/cats/mustelids to support the claim that zoos may be the source of the outbreak, even though all of those animals can carry SARS-CoV-2. We do not say that the birds at the Hangzhou Zoo in Zhenjiang may be the source of the recent H10N3 case in that area.
I believe this fails on both counts. We cannot simply repeat the claims of a TV talk show host who is described as unreliable about this topic by several of our most trusted sources. We cannot use those claims to source content that is UNDUE for inclusion, and which extremely few, if any of our reliable sources even mention. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink Thanks for the detailed reply. All solid points. I will reword the edit and find a better source.Pakbelang (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam Shibbolethink I have reworded the edit, noting the presence of the bats in the lab but stating that reliable sources report that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely".Pakbelang (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. LearnIndology (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LearnIndology, do you wish a trip to WP:AE? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ror dynasty" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ror dynasty. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Ror dynasty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed

Thank you for your response here. I somehow missed it.

I can find maps from 1907 in Wikipedia. Are the 1931 maps available here as well? I can see the maps in the UChicago website, but are they available here?

Chaipau (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pravarasena II/GA1

TrangaBellam, your review of this GA nomination is waiting for you to take the next step. Please stop by at your earliest opportunity to continue/conclude your review there.

I have also pinged you on your other GA review, Talk:Vellar River (Northern Tamil Nadu)/GA1, which has been open for just about two months without any response from the nominator and appears to have been abandoned by them—they haven't edited Wikipedia since before you opened your review. It should probably be closed as unsuccessful, either right away or by the end of August. Thank you very much, and thank you for your work reviewing GANs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, it's been another three weeks, and you have yet to do anything about Talk:Vellar River (Northern Tamil Nadu)/GA1 even though you've been active elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you don't return to it in the next seven days, I'll have to assume you're no longer interested, and take action myself. Thank you for giving this your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, I was waiting for the nominator to reply. But that we don't have any, I will now mark it as failed. I apologize for any issues caused by this delay. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice for Sati (practice)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sati (practice) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I invited you to the talk page to ask what your dispute is but you ignored and instead engaged in an edit war. I added modern, reliable references and removed the long quote and one unreferenced but neutral, verifiable sentence. If you continue this, both you and User:Fowler&fowler to the Admin Noticeboard; he will be reported for personal attacks and threats in edit summaries. Instead, I encourage you to engage in constructive discussions on how to improve the page. Cease blind, unexplained reverts immediately.--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

User:TrangaBellam is threatening to block and harassing me. I will request that you be blocked for WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. And spreading biased opinions and racism. You spread hatred by only relying on cherry-picked sources.

Here is the reliable resources. You can easily reach out to Twitter too.

talk Chopra said that after this tweet, Twitter had initially locked @IndiaExplained, asking him to delete the tweet. “I deleted it only to access the IndiaExplained account to make a statement to my (nearly) 70,000 followers about Twitter’s hypocrisy and double standards,” Chopra said. This is from your favorite news source https://theprint.in/india/modi-critic-indiaexplained-claims-twitter-account-suspended-for-tweet-taking-on-pm/335541/

South Asia Scholar Activist Collective . Simran Jeet Singh Has members from https://www.sikhcoalition.org/. This is a private NGO. Please let me know what a private NGO is doing being part of an academic group? Reliable source here: https://goachronicle.com/george-soross-open-society-foundation-and-sikh-coalition-are-joined-at-the-hip/

Hrishirise (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User:TrangaBellam by — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert on Audrey Truschke

Regarding this, I didn't get why you don't want the dead links to be removed. Is that because you're working on those drafts that'll be published soon, so you'll setup redirects? Or if there is a specific reason, let me know. —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 05:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red link. Not a dead link.
WP:REDYES. Generally, it is unwise to remove red links unless you are certain that the article will fail WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 05:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Aurats (word) & Islamic advice literature and help expand the articles of topics interest you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Goodary

Dear TrangaBellam, Reza Goodary's article has credible sources approved by WP:News sources. Unfortunately, the article was not confirmed by one of the users yesterday. Please kindly help for approve.

(1), (2), (3), (4). IRIB, IRNA, ILNA are in the list. Also IPNA is Iran Pro Sport News Agency (5) and BORNA News Agency (Reputable news agency affiliated with the Ministry of Sports of Iran) (6). Also It is news from official website of Ministry of Sport Iran (7) (Link open only in Iran).

The Reza Goodary (رضا گودری) article already approved on The Persian Wikipedia.

Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. MMA Kid (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The malicious deliberation of your edits on Raja Pratapaditya

I did not give any unreliable sources, sources like dinesh chandra sen , rama ram basu, jadunath sarkar are reputed sources. They went through the scrutiny of reputed academic institutions and hence selective quoting and deliberate obsecure edits on particular pages are unethical from the point of view of ethics regarding maintaining neutrality. I have my sources which are of reputed books and authors but deliberately ou have left a page underinformed because of your own biases. No body should deliberately edit a page, different point of views of reputed historians should be taken into account which you have not.I would request a topic ban on your account if these deliberations continue from your side.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don (talk • contribs)

Yamaguchi先生, is this a sock? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be. If you have any behavioral evidence to consider, would you please consider submitting a formal report at WP:SPI for CheckUser assistance? It is striking that this account had been inactive for 5 months, then reactivated and began editing the Pratapaditya article immediately after it had been protected and several accounts had been blocked for disruption and/or socking. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi先生 (talk)Dear yamaguchi , I am do not possess any alternate accounts neither I ahve been socked even once . I have made edits about people of different leanings and individual frameworks and I am not interested in deliberations when we are giving proper source as a new editor disrupting that is a falacy. given from both of your side neutrality on this particular article is not on display.regards sam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don (talk • contribs)

TrangaBellam The neutrality policy of wikipedia is not maintained by your edits where you engaged on an edit war for days . I edited with references of artiles on reputed websites, government websites of west Bengal , The page was still reverted back by yourself .This could result in a topic ban on your account as you have chosen to edit a page according to your needs without providing citations from different reliable sources which have different opinions .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don (talk • contribs)

You have probably missed that Kuru reverted your edits. Government websites are not reliable sources for history. You can raise a proposal to TBan me at WP:AN or WP:AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam (talk)That I have clarified to Kuru. You are forgettful of your continious edit war that you did for the last few days . The governemnt website concerned is asigned to maintain localized history of the people of the concerned istrict which is reliable and this institution is maintained by proffesionals and offcers at public service . There are many authentic sources which you have refused to cite which come from many ethnic and regional background.Third you have deliberately reduced a page to mere trivias , which is unjust and against the policy of neutrality and reliable souces as you have not cited much and have selectively quoted.regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don (talk • contribs)

Conversion of Jain basadis into hibdu temples

You idiots why did edit Dridhaprahara (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Tranga,

Thanks for the redirect that article seemed to be just a copy and paste pov for and unnecessary. Thanks again and take care. PremijAnans (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE sectioning

Hi TrangaBellam! You should probably move your comment at WP:AE out of the results section and into a new Statement by TrangaBellam section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I was just using the Wikipedia reply button. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on Page

Hello TrangaBellam - Once of the user is vandalizing [Third Battle of Panipat page]. His name is Noorullah21. He removed below content: Multiple issues|POV|date=August 2021 and Unreliable sources|date=August 2021 which you added on the page. Also he added unsourced information such as Supported by Jats in the infobox and also added some Amb state which is unsourced as well. Can you take a look and revert these vandalism? 199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported his Edit warring 199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi TrangaBellam,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
  • Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
  • Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
  • Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
  • If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
  • Use common sense.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the orders in the mosque dispute

Sorry for taking so long to respond. The answer is that, no, I can't actually provide you with those orders; they aren't clickable links in Newsbank, just text, so I have no idea what the URLs actually are. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate727, thanks. Nothing to apologize for! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful comment

Your comment in the talk page of the article chhatri "India has its fair share in historically illiterate people" feels kind of disrespectful to me and is basically off topic and you may be get blocked for that. I am not reporting you for now (to be honest I don't know how to report someone I am new here). Piedpiper186 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fact for any of the 193 member-states of UNO (aka countries) — India or Turkmenistan or Netherlands. You can try reporting me at WP:ANI or WP:AE, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a historian myself - There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Bengali Brahmin

Why have you removed traditional accounts from the Bengali Brahmin page? How dare you remove sourced references?Mikemarssss (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

নিশ্চয়ই, ধন্যবাদ Maxwell6666 (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

It looks like no one informed you about this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, thanks.
I refuse to believe the strategic omission of the content of certain edits (see my detailed reply) —which demolishes his theories of me being some genocide-apologist pro-Pak POV pusher— arises out of good faith. What do you suggest? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPs case is all over the place and I didn't take it seriously. Orientls, who I generaly respect, is, on the other hand, more concerning. I'd suggest focusing on their diffs. I'm a little busy in RL today but will read it in detail perhaps later this afternoon. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, anybody for whom it is clear that the [MBlaze Lightning's] evidence is speaking for itself here: the manifest of same POV across the same subgroup of articles that Towns Hill/Faizan was most concerned with, is umm...
This is unsurprising because Orientls has hardly written any significant content - cat additions, undo, and SPI comments are all that I came across.
As I said at the SPI, multiple editors including me, SarahWelch, and F&F mention the author name and often page numbers, in edit-sums. That hardly proves anything - even Orientls mentions the page number as an edit sum. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectable, quite much. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. I took a look at their comments and they don't amount to anything.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPI notifications are intentionally not mandatory because they often just cause drama and walls of text arguing in one's self-defence, which is generally not necessary at SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Varendra rebellion important enough to have a separate article?

Hello TrangaBellam . The varendra rebellion or kaivarta revolt has been termed as the first successful revolt in India. Scholars and historians who have written history of ancient Bengal and India have surely mentioned it. It was for a long period as a separate article. Why are you deleting it now? Thanks. Dear Debasish (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The varendra rebellion or kaivarta revolt has been termed as the first successful revolt in India. - Cite some scholars?
Why are you deleting it now? - Because, I have written a far better summary at Ramacharitam which remains the only source for the event. WP:CFORK. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have another article (again, drafted by me) on the same locus at Dibar Dighi. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a talk page for discussion on the topic. Why have you not participated and discussed? I have read the "first successful revolt" thing and was going to add sources but the article just vanished before that!! Dear Debasish (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not able to read Bengali, I am sufficiently acquainted with Indian historiography to know that no reliable historian would deem the event to be the first successful revolt in India.
If you prove me wrong, do add that at this section. TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Varendra rebellion or Kaivarta revolt is much more well known term than 'Dibar Dighi' and Ramcharitmanas doesn't only describe kaivarta revolt but also Ramayana. It should have separate article . I was improving it with reliable and verifiable sources . You could have just participated . Dear Debasish (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add, other than what I have already written, because the sole source of the event is Ramacharitmanas. Please propose all improvements at Talk:Ramacharitam. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look I haven't created the article. It was there for a very long time. I was just improving the article with reliable and verifiable sources(You have also used a common source). . But You removed an existing article and enlarged another article. The timing of these things clearly implies a very unfriendly, uncooperative and vindictive attitude. That's maybe unethical in Wikipedia. Dear Debasish (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you feel so. I had expanded Ramacharitam on June '21 - check the dates carefully, from the page history. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have seen that.
Should I focus on scientific articles then? or Do you write that too? Dear Debasish (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? As long as you don't write articles on statistics or certain aspects of number theory, you won't see me. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the can you understand Bengali? or Are you from other region of India?
I can assure you there are many articles on Wikipedia on ancient history which have only one ancient source but many historians have written on it and there are contrasting views in spite of that. The apparent reason for that is that they have also referred and analyzed other events of that time to come to different conclusion. Same applies to Varendra rebellion. It is not proper to delete a article which meets the notability criteria and is here for a long time! Dear Debasish (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am an immigrant but a frequent visitor to India. My languages are displayed at my user page - proficient in Dutch, English, and Sanskrit along with little bit of Farsi and negligible Turkmen.
Undeniably, multiple historians had written about Varendra Rebellion but they had one primary source material - Ramacharitam. So, varying interpretations of the same text. I have mentioned the most notable interpretations - will add Thapar.
If you believe that there are other primary sources, point me to them. If you wish to add other content, please propose them. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ramcharitam also contains Ramayana, you may consider adding them. And if you think there are some WP:CFORK , please remove them as soon as you have improved one of the article. The timing of these clearly implying a very bad gesture. Thanks. Dear Debasish (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About navayana page

Hello, I'm writing to you as i just read your article about navayana Buddhism page and i feel it's not completely satisfied and somehow misleading. If it is not written by you please help me to reach with main author thank you 🙏🏻 Marathisach (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marathisach, I am not the author. Please post at Talk:Navayana. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: no stalking and harassment in wikipedia please

TrangaBellam: Stalking and harassment is not an acceptable practice in wikipedia, per past case reviews. You seem to be stalking me and leaving hostile remarks on article's talk page I am editing. For example, an edit check suggests that your account has not edited Somnath temple since about 2016 (over the last 500 edits, well in your case since you opened your account on 13 July 2020)). I left a message on Somnath temple talk page on August 12 2021. On October 1 2021, I started the process of reviewing and expanding that article, a work that is in progress. After your Nalanda article tag (which I recently updated), you tag Somnath article and leave this inappropriate accusations-filled comment. FWIW, I remind you that I have found you misrepresenting sources (e.g.), something Kautilya3 concurred with, and you apologized for. I feel there is problematic pattern in your behavior in wikipedia, your (mis)reading of sources and how you interact with others. This is not helpful.

I welcome you to constructively collaborate with me, by saying "this scholarly source says there are only 7 or 15 or 23 campaigns by Mahmud of Ghazni" and should we revise/update this section?.... that sort of approach would be helpful. I also welcome you to identify peer-reviewed scholarly sources that say something different than what I have added, and I will help you summarize them. But, hostility is neither helpful nor welcome in wikipedia. Please be careful in how you interact with other editors. I request that you stop stalking me and leaving accusation filled, hostile messages such as one here. This is a just the required formal notice of my protest, in case you continue, and if I must press your case through AN / ARCOM procedures. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tendency to remove tags without discussions —Wink and Nalanda— and then, take the moral high ground about collaboration. So, I pointed to a discussion where other neutral editors had agreed about your disruption.
I have watchlisted multiple articles on controversial topics which are pet areas of Hindutva POV pushing — that includes Somnatha, Nalanda, and multiple temples/univs. I have rewritten a couple of them.
If I see some massive changes, I am going to pay attention.
Since we are on the topic of misusing sources, you are yet to provide the quotes.
If you believe that you can prove a case of harassment or inappropriate use of sources or anything else, please proceed. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj

What on earth is meant by the supports are in accordance to Wikipedia, while the opposes are not?

This seems pretty one-sided, as if the opposes are Against Wikipedia guidelines.. and which would that be?

This is not enough for a closure, this is not specified at all.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in favor of the proposal aren't based in policy while the opposes are [based in policy]. - For some unknown reason, you had understood the exact opposite. I think this is enough for a closure. Quality of arguments and their adherence to policy matters. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no quarrel with how you closed the move discussion. My reason for helping our "friend" with posting a move review is to facilitate smooth running of Wikipedia. His/her intentions are clear, but how to complete the process defeated him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Allahabad

An editor has asked for a Move review of Allahabad. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Our "friend" failed in his/her efforts to post a review request, and seemed to be asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Prayagraj.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there some typographical errors in your post at Wikipedia:Move review#Allahabad.
  1. You wrote: "The first two opposes by JayPlaysSTuff and Glennzzl invokes a move-precedent". Surely supports.
  2. You wrote: "Vajra Raja's oppose might be a valid pov". Surely support.
It might be a good idea to fix these - especially as there is a possibility that this text might get moved into the closing summary. It is clear to me that you meant to write support in both cases.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling face reminder Please do not forget that at Wikipedia:Move review#Allahabad, you agreed to improve your closing summary at Talk:Allahabad#Requested move 20 September 2021 once the move review had reached a decision. There was quite a bit of discussion about what should be in that improved closing summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Synthesis

The inappropriate revert you made on The wire (India) is a case of synthesis as you rev summary says"rv govt censorship attempts carried in wiki-voice". Plz avoid synthesis. DavidWood11 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD - If your bold addition has been reverted, talk-page is the next destination. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refer your this rev. You have not provided the proper edit summary DavidWood11 (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of WP:BRD

Consider your this revert. Now, get familiar with this essay about WP:BRD that i quote here "BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". Plz be noted that you have not provided any reason of your using BRD. Yours is a clear case of misuse of BRD. Caution DavidWood11 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider context
  1. Set of edits by DavidWood11 with no citations
  2. Reverted by DaxServer Rollback edit(s) by DavidWood11 (talk): Reverting good faith edits, unsourced, restore last stable version (RW 16.1)
  3. DavidWood11 reverts back and adds citations →‎Others: added WP:RS and details to the section undothank Tags: 2017 wikitext editor Reverted, →‎Others: added WPRS
  4. Reverted by TrangaBellam Restoring revision 1048119157 by DaxServer: rv govt censorship attempts carried in wiki-voice. (RW 16.1)
  5. DavidWood11 reverts back Undid revision 1048842699 by TrangaBellam (talk) "govt censorship attempts : is a synthesis
  6. Reverted by TrangaBellam (WP:BRD Undid revision 1048991060 by DavidWood11 (talk)
You can hardly claim that you did not know why he/she reverted you. As for use of the article talk pages - that started 8 minutes[11] after the last revert on the article page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OOPs i missed citing the content at first instance. A human error. however i have provided this this and this as WPRS later. I can see your goal post change tactics, i didnt understand what you wanted to prove by giving all the above facts. As a matter of fact my original regarding misue of BRD holds the ground. DavidWood11 (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Sanyal

You undid the revision i made on Sanjeev Sanyal article. You are violating the wikipedia rule See-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia#Use_multiple_independent_source.You have used only one source and itslef crtical of Sanjeev Sanyal in the views and reception section. You have not used mukltiple independent sourcee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryaGyaan (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never come across this policy, thanks. But, this is not applicable for our content. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astana

Hello, why didnt you immediately start a new move request, after you closed the old one?

I mean, that I wrote for the reason, that you explained the closure of Prayagrajs discussion is similar, if that is not enough of a reason, okay, I understand, but that's like a small formality, if you close the Requested move therefore, be fair enough to open a new requested move for the same article.

Otherwise it seems like searching for a small mistake to close the whole Procedureywhich doesnt seem to be a fair Game.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tecumseh*1301, why will I? If you believe that a preponderance of sources -since the name change- don't prefer the new name, cite data in support and open a new RM. You were engaging in pointy disruption (I had provided this link at your t/p; read it) and hence, shut down. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening me on ANI with repercussion

PLz avoid Threatening me on ANI with repercussion as you did here. If you have any issue with my editing plz start a new thread. Dont make administrators space a battle ground DavidWood11 (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barahoti

You made some large additions to Barahoti. Why did you leave out the referencing? Even some more rudimentary referencing for unreferenced paragraphs would have helped. DTM (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, I am sorry. I will add all references by tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmen GAs, and a suggestion, if you don't mind.

I would first like to say that I will be saying this with the utmost respect for the work you do, and as a less experienced editor, I do not have the knowledge to say much about the changes you made/requested, at least the ones about history. I would, however, like to mention something that I believe harms the discussions that you participate in.

You seem to enter into arguments with a tone that, from the outside, looks very forceful and somewhat dismissive. For example, you indirectly claimed that I knew virtually nothing about Turkomans, and while it is true that nomadic Turkic ethnicities are outside of what I would usually contribute to (that is music, Modern Turkish and Ottoman culture), I would like to think that I know some things about Turkoman culture, albeit much less than the knowledge you have on the subject. This made me more regretful (for taking the review) than anything, but it did put me on the defensive, as at first I suspected that, with the massive amount of editors that like to ram changes through using this type of language, you were trying to do something similar. Of course, now I understand that this was not your intention at all. However, I do believe that this type of tone can absolutely fan the flames of an otherwise obvious discussion, as it did in the RM close of Allahabad.

I would like to repeat the fact that I consider myself a bad editor next to you, and I guess that is partially my point. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and it is, by definition, limited by the people who use it. I am not as knowledgeable as you are, but I don't think that disqualifies me from improving or assessing articles to the best of my abilities. If people only reviewed GANs they were experts in, we would have a very impressive backlog of GA candidates that would never get reviewed, and while I understand that to a knowledgeable person, mistakes in articles tend to stick out much more (the first sentence of the Music of Turkey article comes to my mind, and I'm yet to change it), your approach seems to discourage most editors from doing anything, which, at the end of the day, hurts this encyclopedia, not help it. Uness232 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uness232, Acknowledging the message, will draft a reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel not a little bit insulted by your comments at Talk:Sharada Peeth, but your talk page being full of blocked people who were mad at you fills me with confidence that you know what you are doing. You seem a textbook WikiDragon: competent and knowledgeable, but forceful. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ram Chandra Kak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles IX. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC) License Raj Issue[reply]

License Raj Issue

Hi,In the Sanjeev Sanyal Page,is it you who has added an invisble comment saying"Don't link the article on Licence Raj."?If it is you,Why should not the License Raj page be linked to Nehruvian Socialism. Isn't that the same?Any reasons? AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DiplomatTesterMan

Hello, TrangaBellam. You have new messages at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019)/GA1.
Message added 12:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TrangaBellam, now that the GA review's 'first comments' have been addressed (if adequately addressed), do you have any other comments? If you feel the need, you could close this GA or ask for a second opinion. (An enthusiastic editor) DTM (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for this discussion to resolve — see criteria 5. After resolution, I will take a detailed look at the content. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

RegentsPark (comment) 12:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist me on Jalal al-Din Mangburni page

Hello. Since the TV series Mendirman Jaloliddin began, this article elevated into fame- everyday it got hundreds of visits. The TV series is very misleading and thus I decided to clear up all those junks and improved the article greatly. But it is still rated C-class? What is missing? Can you help me and elaborate some examples? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgabat International Airport

Please revert the change of our approval. Flights have been canceled due to Covid. It does not mean that you will never fly, I do not think that the user who made these arrangements will look at the part that gives the massage because he is doing vandalism. So let's remove all canceled flights all flights

Thanks for your understanding Eray08yigit (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşegül Coşkun

Hi TrangaBellam, do you still intend to copy-edit Ayşegül Coşkun? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't begun copy-editing the article, I've struck your acceptance at the GOCE Requests page so someone else can copy-edit it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Malik Baba. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmertel23, it is not advised to template regular editors.
Orphan templates are not to be added in a mechanical fashion to every article that fits the criterion — see the template page.
How did the article run foul of MOS:TENSE? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Maharashtra Purana

Hello, TrangaBellam,

Thank you for creating Maharashtra Purana.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I've re-added the notability tag to your article on "Maharashtra Purana," as no changes to the article have been made and it's very unclear what you mean by "disruptive tagging." If I had wanted to nominate the article at AfD like you suggested, I would have done that.

The reason I tagged the article is that while there are references to the work in the sources, only one of them is about the Maharashtra Purana itself - The others are passing mentions. As it stands, the article would be improved if you could add one more source focusing exclusively or almost exclusively on the Maharashtra Purana.

Obviously, if you feel you've met the notability requirement, you're welcome to remove the template, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning so that there's no confusion - I don't want something to fall through the cracks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ThadeusOfNazereth}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth:, passing mentions? Did you read Kumkum Chatterjee or Dimock? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Dimock was the source I thought was best - "Only one of them is about the Maharashtra Purana itself." The Kumkum source is really good too! I didn't read it initially because it was under further reading, which just isn't something I usually check as part of the NPP workflow - I should probably start, though! I went ahead and removed the tag :) - Glad we could clear everything up. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There are many other sources in vernacular; a pity that I am not literate in Bengali language. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text in Sakaldwipiya?

Dear TrangaBellam,

I am curious why you think the text you removed, and the article itself, is disputed. Can you explain in some detail so that I or other editors can respond to your objections?

Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaiya: - Apologies for the delay in responding. Check the current version of the article — you might expand upon, further. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TrangaBellam,
Thanks for your nice work on the article. I will work on it sometime. I note that you have relied on Johannes Bronkhorst's article. There are numerous articles on the subject in English (& German) and Hindi, in addition to Sanskrit texts. Bronkhorst may not have been aware that there are living thriving communities in Bihar and in Rajasthan/Gujarat (where they are known as Bhojak). They publish their own magazines and construct new Sun temples etc. In many Jain temples they still conduct worship. You can identify them immediately because they wear a red dhoti.
Bronkhorst is somewhat opinionated, I hope you will not insist that only western scholars are reliable authors. He had not been aware of the fact that Vedik brahmins have long looked down on the Shakadvipi - there is explicit condemnation of the devalaka in Manu Smriti, and they still do. Malaiya (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does Manusmriti 3.152 concern our subject? Why are you equating Devalaka to Maga Brahmins?
I see that you are in agreement with Romila Thapar—Magas used to be disallowed in Sraddha ceremonies etc. and gained stature with time—but as Bronkhorst enquires, what is the underlying evidence behind such an assertion? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Devalaka are the priests in the devala, i.e. a shrine with an idol, and they are compensated for the job of priesthood. Vedic brahmins did not approve of that. It is discussed in detail in Sambapurana in chap. 26 Maganayana, (Bringing of the Magas) v. 17-29.

एवमुक्तस्तु साम्बेन नारदः प्रत्युवाच तम्‌ १९
नारद उवाच

न ह्विजाः परिगृह्नन्ति देवस्यात्मीकृतं धनम्‌
विद्यते च धन ह्यत्र गुरुश्चायं प्रतिग्रहः २०
देवचर्या गवैद्रन्यैः क्रिया ब्राह्मी न विद्यते
आविज्ञाय च कुर्वन्ति ये क्रिया लोभभोहिताः २१
अपाङ्तेया भवन्तीह तेन देवलका द्विजाः
अविज्ञाय विधान ये ब्राह्मयणा लोभमोहिताः २२

Note that अपाङ्तेया means not worthy of eating while sitting in the same row. Malaiya (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi TrangaBellam, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe - Thanks for the recognition of systemic bias! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following my edits

Follow any of my edits again [12] & [13] and I will have you reported to the administrators. (wp:following) And don’t even try to wiggle your way out of it if that happens. 7600+ edits and you just magically show up on a talk page for an article you have never edited before, responding at multiple locations specifically to an editor with whom you are debating on another unrelated article. [14]. The lies you would have to tell would be so bad that you’d be better off telling the administrators the truth of your harassment. Estnot (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please have me reported to an administrator. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will if you follow any one of my previous edits again. Take this message your final warning because I won’t be saying it again Estnot (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for creating an impression upon you that I care for your opinions or warnings or whatever. Please never post at my talk - you will be reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar Shah Miri


Odd, that

How would one personify fascists, do you reckon?[15] I mean, they're people to begin with, right? Anyway, thanks for defending Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 17:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajput page doesn't even discuss the Rajput people

The Rajput page is severely vandalised for political objectives. Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I treat this as a declaration of intents? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Amir Timur

Greetings As I observed , you have reverted the edits made by me on Amir Timur. May I please know the exact reason for reverting the edits as I have quoted from Two sources ,ie Medeival Indian Historian K S Lal's Twilight of the Sultanate which has inturn quoted H M Elliot's History of India as told by it's own historians Vol 3 page 461. There can be general argument that H M elliot is an orientalist Historian so his works may be outdated but as the name of the book itself indicates it is just translations of Persian and Arabic texts so how can you revert my edits without due reason? Hope you reply Ananda Sharmar (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Lal is a Hindutva propagandist and his later works were subject to uniformly negative reception. On criticisms of Elliot's colonial scholarship, see Asif, Tandon, Eaton, Chatterjee et al. Even if the translation was technically correct, you cannot use a primary source without applying the rigors of historical analysis and considering the contexts of production.
On Timur's motivations, Orsini writes,

His campaign in India and conquest of Delhi in 1398–9 was not an attempt at integrated conquest, nor was it an attempt at plunder and loot. Rather, his Indian campaign was conducted in order to secure an influence over important adjacent territories so that no larger state formations could emerge in that direction.

Anyways, the more important point is that the alleged autobiography is entirely spurious: consult Rieu (1879). TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comment at my talk page

Thanks for assuming good faith in me :-) WikiLinuz (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

As you may have noticed, I started working on the Hindutva lead in your sandbox section. I was wondering if you'd be willing to split that section into a subpage, as that makes referencing, and talk page discussion, easier. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - splitting it into a separate subpage. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tasharvat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tasharvat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasharvat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Makhtumkala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Makhtumkala is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makhtumkala until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange lands of S. Asia

Deserve an article - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section on upliftment of depressed castes by Savarkar

User:TrangaBellam

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Savarkar page citing Dhananjay Keer's book as an "unreliable source" regarding Savarkar's work against untouchability when he has been cited for the same by [Vikram Sampath], a Fellow of Royal Historical Society in his biography of Savarkar and also the wiki page for Patit Pawan Mandir. His work regarding inter-caste dinners is historical fact, as observed in the photo at the top of this news article. Please tell me your criteria for deciding the reliability of the source so I can follow the same next time.

Kindly respond as soon as possible

Thanks!

--AgileAlligator (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)AgileAlligator[reply]

AgileAlligator, welcome to my talk-page. All new messages go at the bottom. Keer is an unreliable hagiographer and I am yet to read Sampath. His work on eradicating untouchability need to be situated in the context of his politics — Savarkar was no Ambedkar. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam
I am relatively new to this webiste, forgive me for not following convention
Savarkar and Ambedkar essentially agreed on eradication of untouchability. You can read an excerpt of the correspondence between Savarkar and Ambedkar here. If you haven't read Sampath yet, I suggest you do. He presents for the most part a very balanced view of Savarkar, something that has been missing amongst the sea of political hitjobs and hagiographers.
Note, I am not saying that the motives of Savarkar and Ambedkar were the same. Savarkar was concerned more about the lower castes converting to Christianity and Islam, and the inherent hypocrisy of treating your co religionists worse than Muslims and Christians. But their end goals were aligned, in fact Savarkar went further than Ambedkar in terms of on-ground activism and combating orthodoxy.
Regardless of these things, there are two indisputable facts presented in my addition to the article. One, that there was a Patit Pawan Mandir ideated by Savarkar and constructed by his associate. And two, the first public inter-caste dinner that I provided photographic evidence of in my reply. Both of these things were not mentioned in the article, there was only a passing reference to the work he did combating untouchability. These facts must be added to the article; I do not care how you frame the political narrative around them.
 If you have a better way of expressing these facts with nuance, I invite you to edit my changes and collaborate to produce a better article together :)
Just please don't revert the changes automatically.
Thanks,
--AgileAlligator (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Savarkar went further than Ambedkar in terms of on-ground activism and combating orthodoxy - Citations needed.
Savarkar was concerned [and only concerned] [] about the lower castes converting to Christianity and Islam - Agreeable to an extent. When I emphasize on context, what I mean is:

Savarkar's carefully laid out definition of a 'Hindu' rendered great service to his history writing. While he collapsed all sectarian, caste-based, regional and linguistic differences to project Hindus as unified community, he simultaneously, also ensured the maintenance of upper-caste status quo framed a sympathetic defence of the caste-system by arguing:

"The outcastes and lower caste Hindus condemned conversion to other religions and instead readily joined the upper caste Hindus in their struggle for the creation of an independent Hindu nation. Caste-system must have facilitated the stupendous consolidation and remarkable stability of the Hindu society ... the Hindus ... created, or voluntarily allowed to be created, this caste-system with the sole object of protecting their racial seed and blood, preserving their caste-life and tradition and keeping them absolutely pure from any contamination ... Every caste, whether of the Brahmins or of the sweepers was immensely proud of their separate identity."

According to Savarkar, the Hindus are excessively virtuous - an extremity bordering on perversion - which is responsible for the defeat and degeneration of the Hindu race and the Hindu nation. In one of his chapters entitled Perverted conception of virtues, Savarkar laid out this idea in the following words:

"Besides the silly superstition of the Hindus about caste system, the various bans on exchange of food and drink, redemption of the outcastes ... and which had done tremendously more harm than the two pronged religio-political Muslim offensive had done, another suicidal morbidity had completely possessed the Hindu mind for a long time. This morbidity paralysed their own offensive and counter-offensive might. Far greater than the Muslim could ever attempt were the defeats inflicted on themselves by these morbid, virtuous Hindus! If a comparatively mild term is to be used for this infatuation, this mental imbalance of the Hindus, which causes disastrous losses for themselves, we have to call it a perverted sense of Hindu virtue."
— Kumar, Megha (2006). "History and Gender in Savarkar's Nationalist Writings". Social Scientist. 34 (11/12): 33–50. ISSN 0970-0293.

Forging a singular Hindu identity whose primary affiliation or loyalty was not to religious deities or other kinship, familial, or caste ties but to the nation was Savarkar’s primary objective. Any ‘‘other’’ kind of affiliation was seen as a ‘‘threat’’ or impediment to the forging of such a national identity including Muslim religiosity and belief in pan-Islamism. For him, all overlapping identities needed to be abstracted and crystallized into a monolithic one. His whole life’s effort was in a sense an attempt to forge this singular Hindu identity, which would be centered primarily around nationalism, knowing very well that it did not exist but had to be reconstructed.

In this manner of thinking, all other markers of identity such as among others, tribe, caste, region, language, and place of habitation, prevalent in India, are abstracted into homogeneous markers such as ‘‘Hindus’’ or ‘‘Muslims’’ which become significant in modern politics. As Kaviraj (1995) argues, pre-colonial Hinduism was a ‘‘thick’’ religion-people were embedded in a multiplicity of social worlds and beliefs, which resulted in tremendous fragmentation of religious groups within the wide umbrella of Hinduism itself, and it is not clear that one group would call itself similar to the other, namely as ‘‘Hindus.’’ This is precisely what Savarkar feared. Jains or Arya Samajis would constitute their own sects due to differences with Brahmanic Hindus as also tribals who would have little in common with any of these.

Savarkar vehemently opposed caste practices and exhorted Hindu Mahasabhaites to transgress all caste rules as far as possible to unite Hindus. While his opposition to untouchability and caste oppression was admirable and was acknowledged by many lower caste leaders, he also held as Ram Bapat points out, an instrumental view toward caste. His main opposition to caste was that such affiliations created undesirable boundaries between and among Hindus, acting as an impediment to the creation of singular identities, which was tied closely to his belief in the primacy of the nation. Savarkar’s opposition to caste stemmed from his belief in the primacy of the nation-state as a source of identity. For Savarkar, as for many others, the dilution of caste, religious sects, tribes, and other affiliations was required to create a modern ‘‘Hindu’’ whose primary identity and affinity were to that of the nation.
— Devare, Aparna (June 2009). "Secularizing Religion: Hindu Extremism as a Modernist Discourse". International Political Sociology. 3 (2): 156–175. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2009.00069.x. ISSN 1749-5679.

Bakhle, Janaki (2010-01-01). "Country First? Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966) and the Writing of Essentials of Hindutva". Public Culture. 22 (1): 149–186. doi:10.1215/08992363-2009-020. ISSN 0899-2363. makes for a very interesting and against-the-grain reading of his politics.
Btw, can you quote the source for Ambedkar's reply to Savarkar? I will try reading Sampath's biography soon. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


All of my citations are taken from "Savarkar (Part 2): A Contested Legacy, 1924-1966" by Dr. Vikram Sampath. Specifically, Chapter 2: Caste in Stone. I will henceforth refer to the book as "Sampath".
Ambedkar's response to Savarkar is in Keer, Veer Savarkar, p. 190, which you refuse to accept as a reliable source. Savarkar's correspondence with Ambedkar can be found in Savarkar Samagra, pp. 575–77.


I will now quote part of Savarkar's invitation to Ambedkar (Sampath, pages 105-107)
I propose the following:
1.Please come to Ratnagiri after a fortnight, and give me, if you can, one week’s notice.
2.We propose to arrange a huge inter-caste dining ceremony of about one thousand people that includes Brahmins, Marathas, Vaishyas, Shimpis, Kulavadis, as well as Mahars, Chamars, and Bhangis. People will include all layers of society from well-respected citizens to workers and cleaners. Such ceremonies are not new. In the past, untouchable leaders such as Shri Rajbhoj and Shri Patitpavan Das have witnessed such inter-caste dinings.
.......
6.If you agree, we would like to arrange a lecture by you.
.......
We are not saying that by what we have done, we have solved the national problem. But it is a good indication of what can be achieved. We have shown that even the tradition of six thousand years can be broken, as we have done, within six years. And our success in Ratnagiri and Malvan can be repeated elsewhere. You can be sure of that. And it is for this reason, that we are inviting you to Ratnagiri.
For reasons best known to him, Ambedkar could not oblige this request as well, though he always held Savarkar’s social reforms project in great esteem.
In Savarkar's own words, his reasons for being against untouchability. Take them as you will: (Sampath, Chapter 2, 118-120)
......Readers may feel that I am preaching abandonment of Untouchability for exceptional circumstances only. I have explained why I have to do that. That is only a tactic to get the people moving forward. I wish to emphasize that Untouchability is unjust and suicidal, and for the sake of humanity, it has to be abolished. That is the main reason behind my movement. Other reasons are secondary and accidental
The main thrust of my reply was to highlight that there are two facts that are missing from this article.
One, that there was a Patit Pawan Mandir ideated by Savarkar and constructed by his associate. And two, the first public inter-caste dinner that I provided photographic evidence of in my reply. Both of these things were not mentioned in the article, there was only a passing reference to the work he did combating untouchability.
So long as we agree that these two points are based in fact, the only thing that remains is framing them in the proper context historically. I am happy to leave that up to you, as I do not have much time to devote to historical research. My main objective is to get these facts included in the current article, that's all I am trying to do.
Let me make this clear, once again. I do not care what context you build around the facts, I do not want to indulge in politics. I saw a gap in knowledge, and I wanted to fill it. You are free to edit my insertions as you see fit to provide context. I just beg you to let them be included. That's all.
Thanks!
Look forward to working with you to get these included!
EDIT:
"In April 1933, Dr Ambedkar’s Janata magazine, in a special issue, paid a tribute to Veer Savarkar to the effect that his contribution to the cause of the Dalits was as decisive and great as that of Gautama Buddha himself."
This is from Keer's biography, page 195.
I know you won't accept it, because according to you Keer is biased and is fabricating all of this information. Therefore, by December 29 I will be back with a scanned copy of the aforementioned magazine, upload it to wikimedia commons or something similar, and we can verify it ourselves. I know you can read Devanagari, and have a working knowledge of Sanskrit so shouldn't be too difficult for you to make sense of Marathi. I can read Narathi, on account of it being my first langauge.


--AgileAlligator (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledge receipt.
To start with, Ambedkar's reply to Savarkar is mentioned in Sampath, who sources it to (Keer p. 190) via footnote 64. However, Keer does not provide any source for this particular event. So, what is the primary source?
The other reply of Ambedkar—रत्नागिरीच्या आपण जे कार्य करीत आहात त्याची माहिती वाचून मला आनंद होत आहे. येथील लॉ कॉलेजच्या कामामुळे मला आपल्या आमंत्रणाचा लाभ घेता येत नाही याबिषयी खेद वाटतो. —is sourced to Savarkar himself (p. 145).)
I wish to emphasize that it is not just me who has found issues with Keer or Sampath's questionable use of Keer.
I have been reading Sampath and he seems to have an agenda to give Savarkar his rightful place in history or something like that.
Who even drafts lines like Ambedkar always held Savarkar’s social reforms project in great esteem. [Zero reliable evidence, at-least as evident from citations.] Ambedkar’s unwillingness to share stage with Savarkar is inexplicable?
Sampath spends the next few pages discussing how less progressive Gandhi was on caste/varna/... wrt Savarkar and inserts multiple quotes from Gandhi-Ambedkar correspondence — there is nothing about Savarkar except the author's own commentary about how Savarkar's views on caste were aligned with Ambedkar's.
What is the reason for this long diversion? To Sampath, it seemed (obviously, without any evidence) that Ambedkar’s praise of Savarkar [] stem[med] from his strong disagreement on this issue with the other major player in the field of social reforms in India during this time—Gandhi.
The author spends tens of pages in documenting Savarkar's views on topic XYZ and contrasting it with Ambedkar's. Savarkar's multiple "replies" to Ambedkar are used strategically to impress upon a reader of a vibrant discussion between two visionaries. What is missing from the book is Ambedkar's replies which is not so surprising since there exist almost nil correspondence from Ambedkar to Savarkar in the 40s or 50s. Why was such the case?
What we have are stinging attacks on Savarkar, which Sampath has sanitized. Consult 'जनता' पत्रातील लेख: डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर, अरुण कांबळे, प्रतिमा प्रकाशन for more details.
Anyways, without delving into original research etc., Sampath's is a trade-book and not suitable for use in controversial areas. Peer-reviewed academic scholarship is the standard. If Sampath has managed to publish something in reputed academic journals (he won't, if this is his usual standard of scholarship), please cite them.
I don't see where Keer writes, Dr Ambedkar’s Janata magazine, in a special issue, paid a tribute to Veer Savarkar [...] What he writes—Worthy was the tribute paid and sincere was the appreciation made by a writer in a special issue of Dr. Ambedkar’s Janata [...]—is quite different from your framing which impresses upon a reader that a special edition was devoted to Savarkar! Which, if true, would have been very significant for Savarkar's anti-caste credentials.
Prabodhan Pol has drafted an article on Ambedkar-Savarkar relations. An interesting line runs: For example, Savarkar’s ‘Patit-Pavan’ temple, which was built exclusively for untouchables in Ratnagiri received biting flak in the Janata.
It is obvious that Patit Pavan Temple etc. cannot be inserted until some scholar decides to interrogate the archives and write upon it in details. Pol reiterates what I wrote above, Uunlike his intellectual engagements with Gandhi, Ambedkar had little dialogue with the RSS [or Savarkar].
Personally, I won't be touching Savarkar's article until one highly anticipated volume comes out the next year. That is all I have to say on this matter. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of Chapter 3, Sampath details how Savarkar responded to Gandhi's ways after Saha's death. He chooses to end the discussion by highlighting that Ambedkar had chose to respond in a similar manner.

Again, I see no reason for this diversion—in the form of editorializing—except as a justification of Savarkar's communal reading of Gandhi's politics. Multiple scholars have analyzed Gandhi's relations with revolutionary terrorists from Bengal (esp. Saha). None of them finds a mention.

Proceeding further, Sampath, in his own voice, goes on to admires Sradhhanand's commit[ment] to the cause of the uplift of the untouchables, and the Shuddhi movement (probably) to contextualize Savarkar's criticism of Gandhi's response to his assassination.

Not surprisingly, Sampath skips how the Shuddhi movement infused unprecedented communalism into public discourse (Charu Gupta, Kenneth W. Jones et al)—something which was the (not-so-subtle) point of Gandhi—, or Sraddhanand's curious ways of eradicating caste. Gyan Pandey writes, Sradhhanand's interdining would mean the "partaking of food in separate cups and dishes, cooked and served by decent Shudras." [..] Even such equality—the equality of being allowed to cook for and serve the higher castes—could not be conceded to the lowest classes, the menial labourers, the truly 'unclean'—whether Shudra or 'untouchable.' As Weller remarked, much of the breadcrumbs that were showered to the LCs were out of the fear of losing them to the folds of Islam/Christianity.

So, nah. I won't waste further time reading yet another hagiography of Savarkar. Two chapters are enough to suggest not embarking on this adventure. Your proposed content has nil chance of being included. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about my guy TrangaBellam?
Fact Number 1: Savarkar was instrumental in building Patit Pawan Mandir
Fact Number 2: Savarkar was responsible for hosting the first public inter-caste dinner
Fact Number 3: Both of the above facts are not mentioned in the article.
Now tell me the fact number you disagree with.
If you agree with all of them, then naturally we should include them in the article for the sake of completeness. Is that not what Wikipedia is about?
--AgileAlligator (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Savarkar was instrumental in building Patit Pawan Mandir and ? What else do we know from peer-reviewed publications about it? Pol writes that it was some kind of exclusive-mandir-for-untouchables and hence, bore the brunt of Janata. Keer/Sampath—both equally ludicrous—contradicts Pol.
It is your claim that prior to Savarkar, there were no instances of inter-caste dinner in India? Strange because Savarkar himself writes, Such ceremonies are not new. In the past, untouchable leaders such as [...]
We can't every random factoid to the article unless they are analyzed by academic scholars and put to context. These things stay out. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup at religious conversion article

First of all thank you for the cleanup you are doing. I noticed you removed Baba Shadi Shaheed[16] from the page. Can you please check this source[17] which verifies it? --Bringtar (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this[18], I am not sure how you are connecting Sabarna Roy Choudhury with the Sarbananda of Barsala? Mazumdar family is different from the Choudhury family. This source[19] also confirms that. --Bringtar (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this one[20], I found this cached[21] link that verifies it. Can you please have a look? --Bringtar (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for this one[22], if the person is notable then why it cannot be added? Thanks. --Bringtar (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roper Lethbridge does not comply with WP:HISTRS. I never claimed the two be same but engaged in a comparative analysis: these are nothing more than lores. It is your claim that a daily newspaper is more reliable than Bonnie C. Wade, a Chair-Professor of Music at UC Berkeley (and ex-President of the Society of Ethnomusicology)? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for the explanation. Leave out Baba Shadi Shaheed and Sarbananda of Barsala, founder of the Mazumdar family. But I didn't get your point for Baba Shadi Shaheed and Lutfunnisa Begum, a notable figure in Bengal's history. Can you please explain that? For, Baba Shadi Shaheed, I found that news source which comes from a genuine newspaper and this one from Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Volume 11. --Bringtar (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All Raj-era sources are prohibited for use in articles concerning S. Asian History. As to Begum, I need to think. I am of the opinion that the page shall be deleted: it is listcruft. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a consensus somewhere that Raj-era sources are prohibited for use in south Asian history? I'm not objecting, I'm merely curious.VR talk 18:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have been kept so can you please manage sometime to fix the entries? Thanks. Bringtar (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baidya


Great job indeed, Baffle gab. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, F&F. Here's wishing an amazing holiday to you and your's. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biased source in Saule Omarova article

I have added a section in Saule Omarova talk page regarding the biased source and text about the reason for her withdrawal as per your request. Please share your opinion on this page.

Without a good reason within the next few days to willfully leave a biased opinion in the article I will be adding back the more complete and unbiased text with the unbiased source. And if the edit is reverted once again I will start seeking help to resolve this issue from 3rd parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous 5726221 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be biased. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above link doesn't address my point that there are unbiased sources which include more details than the currently biased source cited. Even if there was the same level of information, why not choose the unbiased source when possible? Here's a quote from the article you linked "non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". In this case we're discussing the reason for her withdrawal which is push back from Republicans and some moderate Democrats (which the bias source omit completely). I believe the bias of this source isn't helping the article on the contrary it is omitting important information and for this reason I believe the source and associated text should be change.

I will copy this discussion in Saule Omarova talk page and will once again leave you a few days to give me a good reason why we should leave this biased source up instead of an unbiased one with more information.

Anonymous 5726221 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of details of Temple destruction

I have added this section back in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murshid_Quli_Khan. Please do not remove anything without proper explaination . Anything that has been put with valid reference cannot be removed based on bias and self-assumptions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit kumar (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The onus of inclusion lies on you and British-Raj sources are seldom accepted in articles on Indian history and polity. Please make yourself familiar with WP:HISTRS — a 160 year old source is not appropriate for introducing controversial details pertaining to a Muslim ruler.
I had already explained my objections at this thread and even pinged you. That I am not Chaudhury, I fail to see how my assumptions might have crept in. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both sides of the story! No one can travel back in time and see what "actually" happened. Looking at the Muslim rule of India, it is safe to assume that Breaking temples are more often true. Supporting Muslim rulers can be called fools at best. DO NOT remove any details, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit kumar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not work on assumptions - please make yourself familiar with WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly - सत्यमेव जयते — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit kumar (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Bout this edit-summary: The "excuse" was not only Majumdar's but also of Sushil Chaudhary, former University Chair Professor of Islamic History & Culture at Calcutta University. You are not a professional historian and your opinions are immaterial; even if you were one, you will need to publish your doubts about Chaudhary in a peer-reviewed media before we can use them.

Katherine Asher—a specialist in Indo-Islamic architecture, whose books are read by every undergraduate student of history—did not bother to mention anything about the Katra Mosque being constructed of demolished Hindu temples, in the two pages devoted to the subject in Michell's monograph-survey on Islamic Architecture in Bengal. That probably tells you something. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heard of P.N. Oak? Go read his books. Whatever I said was with proper reference. Why you guys can not accept the truth? It is people like you who give free pass to Islamists conducting same atrocities even now in Pakistan and Bangladesh. If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit kumar (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, invoking Oak with typical Hindutva rhetoric is probably enough to earn a TBan? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! That is why people like you would go with the truth they believe in. Wheather it is Montgomery (1860) or Oak (1990), you will ONLY believe what you want to. Scared of History or the future buddy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit kumar (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is WikiIslam. Thank you. —Snuish (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt news

Controversy, I have posted correct information with links. Either you prove it wrong or stop malicious edit activities. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let us keep the discussion at one place - that is, your talk. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
trangabellam this user has a history of pushing POV, edit warrring. An appropriate measure to contain them will work best for wikipedia. report them14.139.114.213 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always Provide edit summary

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&oldid=1062281131 Plz provide edit summary] 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&oldid=1062390968"