User talk:Anony20: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎No personal attacks: Comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''.
Line 112: Line 112:
I didn't find a better word for [[User:Heba Aisha|Heba Aisha]] and [[User:LukeEmily|LukeEmily]] Just have a look at their activities, they joined a month ago and how they are editing pages in a pattern to fulfill their propaganda. When I reverted their unsourced edits they messaged me on my talk page for no reason. It wasn't a personal attack, but was just a reminder to tell them the difference between a facebook page and wiki. If however you feel it was a personal attack and affected wiki policy then go ahead and block me, I can't tolerate some propaganda here either [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. [[User:Anony20|Anony20]] ([[User talk:Anony20#top|talk]]) 02:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find a better word for [[User:Heba Aisha|Heba Aisha]] and [[User:LukeEmily|LukeEmily]] Just have a look at their activities, they joined a month ago and how they are editing pages in a pattern to fulfill their propaganda. When I reverted their unsourced edits they messaged me on my talk page for no reason. It wasn't a personal attack, but was just a reminder to tell them the difference between a facebook page and wiki. If however you feel it was a personal attack and affected wiki policy then go ahead and block me, I can't tolerate some propaganda here either [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. [[User:Anony20|Anony20]] ([[User talk:Anony20#top|talk]]) 02:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''.]] Also, please [[WP:indent|indent]] your responses for ease of reading. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
:[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''.]] Also, please [[WP:indent|indent]] your responses for ease of reading. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

::Hi {{replyto|Anony20}}, I am sorry to hear you could not find a better word than "Dumbos" to refer to us. You say you reverted {{ping|Heba Aisha}} 's and my "unsourced" edits - please can you name at least one edit that I made and you reverted that was not sourced? I am sure Heba will be able to defend her edits too.
::FYI, here are some of the citations you removed by your revert on [[Rajput]]. In this edit summary, you wrote "revert to a better version". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=973646315]
::However, with this revert you removed the following high quality sources(''not a complete list'') from the page as well as the corresponding text that was not flattering - from the article. ''And you say these are unsourced?'' CC: {{ping|Sitush}} , {{ping|Bishonen}}

::1.David N. Lorenzen/Daniel Gold (State University of New York Press) <ref name="Lorenzen1995">{{cite book|editor=David N. Lorenzen|author=Daniel Gold|title=Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rpSxJg_ehnIC&pg=PA122|date=1 January 1995|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=978-0-7914-2025-6|pages=122|quote=Paid employment in military service as Dirk H.A.Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India...In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins}}</ref>

::2. Andre Wink <ref name="Wink1991">{{cite book|author=André Wink|title=Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=75FlxDhZWpwC&pg=PA171|year=1991|publisher=BRILL|isbn=90-04-10236-1|pages=171|quote=...and it is very probable that the other fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups...}}</ref>

::3. Detlef Kantowsky <ref name="Kantowsky1986">{{cite book|author=Detlef Kantowsky|title=Recent Research on Max Weber's Studies of Hinduism: Papers Submitted to a Conference Held in New Delhi, 1.-3.3. 1984|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j1cRAQAAIAAJ|year=1986|publisher=Weltforum Verlag|isbn=978-3-8039-0333-4|page=104}}</ref>

::4. [[Hermann Kulke]] - German historian <ref name="Kulke1993">{{cite book|author=Hermann Kulke|title=Kings and Cults: State Formation and Legitimation in India and Southeast Asia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nAYFAQAAIAAJ|year=1993|publisher=Manohar Publishers & Distributors|page=251}}</ref>

::5. Stewart Gordon (Cambridge University Press) <ref name="Gordon2007">{{cite book|author=Stewart Gordon|title=The Marathas 1600-1818|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iHK-BhVXOU4C&pg=PA16|date=1 February 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-03316-9|pages=16|quote=Eventually, kinship and marriage restrictions defined this Rajput group as different from other elements in the society of Rajasthan. The hypergamous marriage pattern typical of Rajputs tacitly acknowledged that it was a somewhat open caste category; by successful service in a state army and translating this service into grants and power at the local level, a family might become Rajput. The process required changes in dress, eating patterns, the patronage of local shrines closer to the "great tradition", and an end to widow remarriage. A hypergamous marriage with an acknowledged (but possibly impoverished) Rajput family would follow and with continued success in service the family would indeed become Rajput. All this is well documented in relations between Rajputs and tribals...}}</ref>

::6. Andre Wink <ref name="AndreWink2002">{{cite book|author=André Wink|title=Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g2m7_R5P2oAC&pg=PA282|year=2002|publisher=BRILL|isbn=0-391-04173-8|pages=282|quote=In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...}}</ref>

::7.Oxford University Press David N. Lorenzen- Burton Stein<ref name="Lorenzen2004">{{cite book|editor=David N. Lorenzen|title=Religious Movements in South Asia, 600-1800|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0cAoAAAAYAAJ|year=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|author=Burton Stein|isbn=978-0-19-566448-5|page=82|quote=When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India.The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers , frequently men of low social origins , a " clean " or " Kshatriya " rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India}}</ref>

::8. Oxford University Press publication. <ref name="Mukta1994">{{cite book|author=Parita Mukta|title=Upholding the Common Life: The Community of Mirabai|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DlVuAAAAMAAJ|year=1994|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-563115-9|quote=The term 'Rajput'before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna-samkara of mixed caste origin , and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas|page=51 }}</ref>

::9. Historian Chandra <ref name="Chandra2008">{{cite book|author=Satish Chandra|title=Social Change and Development in Medieval Indian History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_XYMAQAAMAAJ|year=2008|publisher=Har-Anand Publications| page=44}}</ref>

::10. Dube, State University of New York press<ref name="BhatnagarDube2012">{{cite book|author1=Rashmi Dube Bhatnagar|author2=Reena Dube|title=Female Infanticide in India: A Feminist Cultural History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FK6_l2_TCfgC|date=1 February 2012|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=978-0-7914-8385-5|pages=59, 257}}</ref>

::Thanks, [[User:LukeEmily|LukeEmily]] ([[User talk:LukeEmily|talk]]) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:40, 1 September 2020

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amethia Rajput (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ravenswing was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Casual mentions only in the couple of "reliable" sources proffered, and scarcely more in the non-reliable sources listed. (I particularly liked the "insignia" image; doesn't "undocumented" come down to "I made it up"?)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Ravenswing 02:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Amethia Rajput

Draft:Amethia Rajput, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amethia Rajput and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Amethia Rajput during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jaydayal (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amethia Rajput (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by K.e.coffman was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Anony20! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Amethia Rajput.png

Thanks for uploading File:Amethia Rajput.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Amethia Rajput

Hello, Anony20. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amethia Rajput".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Snowycats (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Amethia Rajput concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Amethia Rajput, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Amethia Rajput

Hello, Anony20. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amethia Rajput".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please stop deletions

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 Rajput, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha and LukeEmily don't try to act as a fool here. I am much better aware and present on wiki from much longer period than you both. You both are making edits to each and every page without any proper knowledge and citations. And I am aware that you're using multiple accounts, don't instigate me to take this issue to moderators, you dumbos. Try as much as you can to make Shudra Jat/Ahir a Kshatriya, but the records and books of pre independence point out to their Shudra and outcaste descent. You guys instead of making multiple accounts on wiki better run your propaganda on Facebook pages. Anony20 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan related articles

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

Template:Z33 Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm leaving this alert on multiple other editors to make sure everyone is aware that editor behavior is closely watched on these articles.

Go and watch the edits made by shudra editors on the established pages instead of trying to preach me. I don't understand why you all are deliberately trying to make wikipedia a facebook page where anyone can come and shit whatever they want. Anony20 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

The next time you call fellow editors "dumbos"[1] or accuse them of using multiple accounts or "shitting on Wikipedia" or make other attacks, I will block you. Please read our policy about personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't find a better word for Heba Aisha and LukeEmily Just have a look at their activities, they joined a month ago and how they are editing pages in a pattern to fulfill their propaganda. When I reverted their unsourced edits they messaged me on my talk page for no reason. It wasn't a personal attack, but was just a reminder to tell them the difference between a facebook page and wiki. If however you feel it was a personal attack and affected wiki policy then go ahead and block me, I can't tolerate some propaganda here either Bishonen. Anony20 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Also, please indent your responses for ease of reading. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hi @Anony20:, I am sorry to hear you could not find a better word than "Dumbos" to refer to us. You say you reverted @Heba Aisha: 's and my "unsourced" edits - please can you name at least one edit that I made and you reverted that was not sourced? I am sure Heba will be able to defend her edits too.
FYI, here are some of the citations you removed by your revert on Rajput. In this edit summary, you wrote "revert to a better version". [2]
However, with this revert you removed the following high quality sources(not a complete list) from the page as well as the corresponding text that was not flattering - from the article. And you say these are unsourced? CC: @Sitush: , @Bishonen:
1.David N. Lorenzen/Daniel Gold (State University of New York Press) [1]
2. Andre Wink [2]
3. Detlef Kantowsky [3]
4. Hermann Kulke - German historian [4]
5. Stewart Gordon (Cambridge University Press) [5]
6. Andre Wink [6]
7.Oxford University Press David N. Lorenzen- Burton Stein[7]
8. Oxford University Press publication. [8]
9. Historian Chandra [9]
10. Dube, State University of New York press[10]
Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Daniel Gold (1 January 1995). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action. SUNY Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7914-2025-6. Paid employment in military service as Dirk H.A.Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India...In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins
  2. ^ André Wink (1991). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries. BRILL. p. 171. ISBN 90-04-10236-1. ...and it is very probable that the other fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups...
  3. ^ Detlef Kantowsky (1986). Recent Research on Max Weber's Studies of Hinduism: Papers Submitted to a Conference Held in New Delhi, 1.-3.3. 1984. Weltforum Verlag. p. 104. ISBN 978-3-8039-0333-4.
  4. ^ Hermann Kulke (1993). Kings and Cults: State Formation and Legitimation in India and Southeast Asia. Manohar Publishers & Distributors. p. 251.
  5. ^ Stewart Gordon (1 February 2007). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9. Eventually, kinship and marriage restrictions defined this Rajput group as different from other elements in the society of Rajasthan. The hypergamous marriage pattern typical of Rajputs tacitly acknowledged that it was a somewhat open caste category; by successful service in a state army and translating this service into grants and power at the local level, a family might become Rajput. The process required changes in dress, eating patterns, the patronage of local shrines closer to the "great tradition", and an end to widow remarriage. A hypergamous marriage with an acknowledged (but possibly impoverished) Rajput family would follow and with continued success in service the family would indeed become Rajput. All this is well documented in relations between Rajputs and tribals...
  6. ^ André Wink (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. BRILL. p. 282. ISBN 0-391-04173-8. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...
  7. ^ Burton Stein (2004). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Religious Movements in South Asia, 600-1800. Oxford University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-19-566448-5. When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India.The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers , frequently men of low social origins , a " clean " or " Kshatriya " rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India
  8. ^ Parita Mukta (1994). Upholding the Common Life: The Community of Mirabai. Oxford University Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-19-563115-9. The term 'Rajput'before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna-samkara of mixed caste origin , and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas
  9. ^ Satish Chandra (2008). Social Change and Development in Medieval Indian History. Har-Anand Publications. p. 44.
  10. ^ Rashmi Dube Bhatnagar; Reena Dube (1 February 2012). Female Infanticide in India: A Feminist Cultural History. SUNY Press. pp. 59, 257. ISBN 978-0-7914-8385-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anony20&oldid=976140544"