Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).
Arbitration
The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Sir good evening, I have added a link to emphasize the great importance of taj ul.masir by hasan nizami the mist authentic historical document of early medieval history of I dia and especially Delhi sultanat and its wars with rajouts states.this book clearly states kacchapaghata as parihar rajputs its written in this book that kacchapaghata were a branch of gurjar pratihar rahouts --Ikswaku (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why there is wrong information published on this Wikipedia regarding kacchapaghata Dynasty, they are not related in anyways with jaipur kachwaha, recently diya kunari the present head of jaipur kachwaha went to court in rekation with ayodhya temple claiming herself(kachwaha )a descendant of kush (son of rama) hence qe are kushwaha but in rajaathan people pronunciation is but distorted hencecwe are called kachwaha instead of kushwaha.she nevwr once said this court we cane from narwar or Gwalior but said we cane from ayodhya in uttar pradesh.even in the amer inscription of raha man singh kachawa he claimed himself to be a kushwaha who came from ayodhya. And didn't mentioned narwar or Gwalior anywhere. So why this fuss about kacchapaghata, who are pariharor pratihar agnvikula rajputs? Did you compare the architecture of kachwaha and kacchapaghata it didn't match in any way.sir, i m about to weite a book on the kachwaha people of amer who came in Rajasthan and founded amer kingdom 309l0 years ago.i want to stress that the most authentic source of early medieval indian history is hasan nizami's historical account of all the wars of Muhammad gori and prthviraj chauhan mamuluk rulers Qutubuddin Aibak and his various conquests (which included wars with kacchapaghata of Narwar and Gwalior,( in this book its clearly written that they are agnikula parihar rajputs.i want you to change wrong information regarding this.ir at least guide me how to remove wrong information regarding kacchapaghata dynasty without inviting the warth of the admins.
First, you don't need to be so formal on Wikipedia (also I would avoid assuming someone to be a "sir", for the record I'd rather not be called that).
Secondly, I'm having some trouble parsing this (in general on Wikipedia, having your comments be short and to the point is prefered) but from what I can gather it seems like you are wondering why there was incorrect info on an article (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that).
The short answer is someone added it in. Edits (mostly) aren't vetted before being published. While lots of changes that aren't supported by reliable, secondary sources will be reverted, some may slip through the cracks. If you encounter this, I recommend editing the page yourself, ensuring that any changes you made are supported by reliable, secondary sources when relevant and ensuring that you leave an edit summary explaining your changes.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on Drmies' talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. NP (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
