Talk:Kadia Kumbhar

Previously Deleted Page/Article

A page with the similar name has previously been deleted, thus notability of the subject is disputed. All the editors are requested to participate in the discussion that how and why this new article is notable. There is one more article Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia on the same group of people. I am requesting a procedural merge. Secondly, The following contents in the last para, I an unable to verify with the mentioned source. Please remove it or improve the references.

Before independence of India, these sub-cast of Kumbhars was largely concentrated in territory of erstwhile Baroda State[1][3] and in Diu territory of Portuguese India[4] Presently, also they are found spread in towns and districts like Vadodara, Amreli, Navsari, Kadi, Okha, Kodinar which, earlier formed part of Baroda State and Diu.

Also, there is already an article Kumhar on the same subject having Sections for Kumhars from all the Indian States. Then why these contents can not be a part of that article and why a separate article is needed. The article Kadia Kumbhar was deteled by the Administrator User:Coffee on 21 February and on the same day this new article is recreated. I think there are even more such articles. Please refer the Deletion Log of previously deleted page -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pl refer to Gazzeter of Baroda State - 1923 quoted in article - it is obvious that if Baroda State Gazeeteer mentions them - they used to live in that territory. Also see link [1] - Communities, segments, synonyms, surnames and titles by Kumar Suresh Singh of and published by Anthropological Survey of India in 1996 mentions that first census of community was taken in 1931 in Baroda. Pl do research yourself and please note that article was in existence since many years and was deleted by prod by default - and hence speedy deletion was declined by admin - [2]. Also stop canvassing. Thanks - Jethwarp (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the wikipedia a joke

1. An Edit war on the page Kumhar. Please refer the talk page 'Untitled' section- as if it is a social networking site and all caste mates are chatting. Thanks to User:Sitush, who resolved the issue and protected the page.
2. The page Kadia Kumbhar was deleted by Administrator and in the very next hour it is recreated.
3. Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya,Kadia Kumbhar,Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia, Maru (surname),Mistri caste, Chunara, Vatalia and many more just to describe a single subject that is "The Kumhars of Gujrat". Why this many articles needed.

I request the administrators to interfere, ban the editors involved in this COI, delete all dubious contents and make the terms create protected.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful in making statements as above - have you gone thru No personal attacks. Also you have shallow knowledge of above articles - please do research they are not single subjects and avoid statements like ban the editors involved in this - just a cool headed advice. Jethwarp (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me clarify that I did not say anything to anybody in person. In fact I called for the process not the person. Yet if it hurts someone, I really regret and apologize for that. Thanks for the advice. My intention is no way to blame anybody personally but to remove the confusions put on wikipedia and misleading information lead by caste websites and other caste promotional sources. Also, please note I never said that I am perfect or perfectly right but requested the experts to involve in the process of purification of information.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

You have reverted my whole edits, without going into details - [3] - please note that in that process - you have also reverted sourced contents and new sources added like Census of India, 1961 book. - so I have added back the contnets.

Also if you were only concerened with lines besides working as potters, many are employed as domestic servants in villages and in towns have become carpenters or masons - I had removed them as it was repetition of first line in para - secondly - due to copy rights issues - we cannot copy exact words from refrence - but have to mould sentence - and cite the source. However, as of now I have added back lines - but that have to be copy edited. Next time you revert something please see that you are also not reverting other sourced contents of the article - you have to use your rollback rights with diligence. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the above context - I advice you to go thru copyright problems and close paraphrase - Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy. Please go thru thsese essays and guidelines to make your self aware of policies while editing and adding lines from any content. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note and will surely abide by your suggestion, the lines which you think are objectionable can be put under quotes in this case which fall neither of the categories mentioned (more objectionable was the manipulation earlier, the reference was already existing manipulative, I just made it as per the source) and yes why to think in negative manner, nothing is my concern, the actual concern, if any, was of the real author of the source.The usage of promotional sources or self published websites/ community dailies is never a good idea. These will certainly be removed one day by some or other editor. Like you, anyone else put up the same efforts searching the web and citing the article. Just think for a while before removing the proper contents.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 13:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]