User talk:Utcursch

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

Archives: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

Seeking opinion[edit]

Hi Utcursch. Would you mind reviewing the recent changes by an IP user (1.38.104.185) in pages such as Tamils, Early Cholas, Education in ancient Tamil country, Chola dynasty, etc. I'm just wondering, for example, if pushing the early dates of the Sangam Era to 3020 BCE is reliable. I initially tried reverting some of these, but am disinclined to edit war on this further without getting an expert opinion. Thanks. ~~~~ Rasnaboy (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: I'll take a look when I'm free. Meanwhile, consider dropping a note at WT:IND for more eyes. utcursch | talk 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Utcursch. Thanks.Rasnaboy (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Birthplace of Prince Vijaya[edit]

Wikipedia :-Kalinga(Historical region) article, "Influence" part. It is written, Kalinga is the birthplace of Prince Vijaya according to The Mahavasma. But according to The Mahavasma, Kalinga is not the birthplace of Prince Vijaya. Page no 196 is cited as the source of this information but sorry to say source does not support it. Sir, you can check it. In this article a wrong information is given, so Sir I request you to please correct the page. Kjhll (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjhll: Please go ahead and update the article - you can drop a note on the article's talk page if the edit summary is not long enough to explain your edit. utcursch | talk 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Thanks for this great SPI report. The clearly presented evidence made dealing with it really easy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gangwar history[edit]

Why you delete my content on Gangwar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Hardenberg (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you deleted my content, but my content is 100% reliable. Alex Hardenberg (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Hardenberg: As explained on your talk page, you need to cite a reliable source to support the content you are adding: you cannot add your personal thoughts or theories to Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my content[edit]

I do not know if you are Malhi yourself but it seems like you are targeting this page repeatedly. This page was fine until you came along and started drastically changing it. You might as well edit every other Punjabi Jatt clan's page then. Pashto250 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pashto250: The page was not "fine" - it was non-compliant with WP:V and WP:BLP: it's just that no one had noticed these issues. If you want me to "stop deleting" your content, please add reliably-sourced content. As for other pages, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Feel free to seek a third opinion at any of the various noticeboards. utcursch | talk 00:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced changes[edit]

Hi, could you have a look at these unsourced changes [1]? Thanks. - 117.201.118.105 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undone by another person. utcursch | talk 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding infobox image to the article covering the Dogra-Tibetan War[edit]

Hello! I wanted to get your opinion on a discussion I started regarding adding artwork depicting Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh as an infobox image, please see: Talk:Dogra–Tibetan War#Adding a depiction of Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh (not sure if I am doing this correctly, I haven't started a consensus building query on Wikipedia before) ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThethPunjabi: Consider dropping a note at WT:IND - many people have it on their watchlist. utcursch | talk 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarayu River (Ayodhya)[edit]

We are here to help you. You created a page called Sarayu River (Ayodhya). I assume that this refers to a river near Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. But you coded the page you created to be a redirect to an article about a town called Ghaghra, which is in the state of Jharkhand. I have blanked the page.

Possible ways forward:

  1. You could write an article about the River Sarayu.
  2. You could find a suitable page for the page you created to redirect to. If you do, please check that it is the one you intended.
  3. You could request that the page you created should be speedily deleted.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Thanks for catching that. Should have been a redirect to Ghaghara. utcursch | talk 10:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Chola I's "Conquest Of the Ganges"[edit]

Sir I am a wiki editor. I edited Rajendra Chola I wiki page. But a user "Lancepark" removed my edits. Again I edited it. I request you Sir please correct this wiki page. Mkophj (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss this on the article's talk (Talk:Rajendra Chola I) page; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Bengal Wiki page problem[edit]

Sir, I am a wiki editor. In the" history " part of wiki page Bay of Bengal, I noticed , the given information is not trustworthy. So I wanted to use the template "better source needed". But a wiki editor removed my template. His/Her name is "Mr.Online". I don't know why did this person do so, this person is just an editor.This person is not even an Admi of Wikipedia. This person said, "source is perfectly fine ", I don't know who is this person to certify, I followed wiki pages, where templates are used. I couldn't use template for this person. Sir can you please visit the wiki page, "Bay of Bengal ?". My request to you sir please visit the page once . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushdeep12 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushdeep12: You can add a note on the article's talk page (Talk:Bay of Bengal) about why you think the source is not good enough. Also, the correct syntax is "{{better source needed}}". In case you need more opinions, you can initiate a discussion about the source at WP:RSN. utcursch | talk 15:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is mentioning in which varna a king was born not allowed by Wikipedia's policy?[edit]

In this one edit of yours[2], and what is castecruft, can't find any definition or use of that word. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination of "caste" and "cruft", used to refer to unsourced additions by people aiming to glorify their caste. If you look at the history of the article Lalitaditya Muktapida, you'd notice that several people have claimed that Lalitaditya belonged to a particular caste such as the Kayasthas or the Brahmins. Adding such a claim to article would be acceptable, if it was reliably sourced. None of these peole have provided a reliable source for their claims. utcursch | talk 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clarification RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Padmakshi Temple[edit]

Lol 😂 Don't try to spread fake news Padmakshi Temple is jain temple not Hindu Inscriptions of India (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Inscriptions of India: The article cites a scholarly article (JSTOR 44141198) from the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. If you know of a reliable source that contradicts the information provided in this article, please feel free to add it to the article. utcursch | talk 11:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor used abusive language against you[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have gone ahead and submitted a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to an IP editor using abusive words (in Hindi) directed against you when you reverted their unconstructive edits, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahluwalia_(caste)&oldid=1139789357

Their behaviour should not be tolerated on Wikipedia and hopefully the admins will respond accordingly.

Take care, ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThethPunjabi: Thanks, that's User:Nikhil448, who keeps IP hopping now and then. Anyone who has a few articles on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Indian castes on their watchlist will ultimately get used to such abuse. utcursch | talk 06:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zaildars by Zail[edit]

Firstly the zaildar listed did not have any links or citations provided Secondly deleting everyones history to just shine yours is a low shows what values you have Everyone uploading their ancestors would have proof so you could go and ask them individually I have a documented certificate from lord EM wavell then viceroy of india giving the title of Sardar Sahib And Zaildaru safedposh status Removing one link would force me to remove your content too and its a game i can play all day long Wikki Factchecker11 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikki Factchecker11: Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. utcursch | talk 13:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this article[edit]

Sorry sir, Do not remove Tarinidevi article because it was already on Bharatpedia. I have already said the proof . I can't do anything . If you want, block Malhotra Malhotri. 103.216.213.43 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatpedia is another user-contributed wiki, and therefore, not an acceptable source. utcursch | talk 07:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are contributing using:

Also wondering if you're same as the now-blocked Shravani Chatterjee (talk · contribs) -- in one of their images on Wikimedia Commons (now deleted as copyvio), they specified the author as Gomateshwari while claiming it to be their own work. Incidentally, Gomateshwari is the name of the user authored the Bharatpedia content that you claim is your source.

Please stop using multiple accounts - you'll get blocked for that, if you are not blocked for unsourced additions first. utcursch | talk 08:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Gomati Sharma (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

Why did you make false allegations against me? I had written the truth only. Soorajmal Singh (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV changes[edit]

Please see these POV changes. Thanks. - 117.201.112.188 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see another set of POV changes by another user [3], [4]. Thanks. - 117.201.114.120 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see[edit]

Please see this, is the source reliable? 117.201.113.192 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, zero results outside of Wikipedia mirrors. utcursch | talk 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revert. They have added it again [5], this time using the existing unreliable source. This user is a sock, I wonder why SPI is taking so long. Thanks again. - 117.201.119.120 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SPI is run by unpaid volunteers -- depending on how busy they are outside of Wikipedia, it may take several hours or several days. utcursch | talk 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint[edit]

hey there. There is a user joshua Johnathan who has completely changed the whole article 'Taxila University ' and had omitted every other perspective beside one.can you report him. Daayush (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically that you know to find Utcursch. Have you edited before, using another account? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no. I have 2 accounts . But I haven't done any edit on taxila article with the other account. Neither any vandalism . Daayush (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which account? Are you related to User:Rowlatt11? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no the one with IP address. You can see on Ashoka . The one reverting unsourced vandalism Daayush (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan has explained the changes in the edit summaries - if you find any explanation inadequate, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page. Also, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iltutmish[edit]

Utkarsh, nice to see you still active after all these years. But what was wrong with this [Iltutmish: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia] edit? why did you revert? 120.63.2.22 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iltutmish: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia 120.63.2.22 (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the edit summary: because the addition was unsourced. utcursch | talk 08:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Haihaiyavanshi Kingdom with Kalachuris of Ratnapura[edit]

Is it alright if I merge both the above mentioned articles, now that our differences have been cleared? I will try my best not to use any British gazetteers and unpublished articles as sources. If you don't remember our discussion, see Talk:Haihaiyavanshi Kingdom#Merger for context. Pls I dank memer (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pls I dank memer: Sure, go ahead. I did have a cursory look at some sources -- from what I understood, there is no inscriptional evidence for political history of Ratnapura (Ratanpur) dynasty after Pratapamalla. In 15th century, we have evidence of a branch ruling at Raipur, as attested by some inscriptions (e.g. the Raipur stone inscription of Brahmadeva). During Mughal period, there is evidence of Haihaya families (often called "sub-kingdoms") at Ratanpur and Raipur. Their own records apparently trace their ancestry to the earlier rulers of Ratanpur, but their genealogies (which largely include rulers with "Singh" and "Sahai" in their names) doesn't tally with earlier epigraphic records. For example, the later Ratanpur family traces its descent to "Bhanusingh" and the later Raipur family traces its descent to "Kesavadeva" (not any Brahmadeva). Gazetteers rely on the records of ruling families, often without any critical analysis (which is one of the reasons why they are unreliable): so far, I haven't found any source that uses modern historical method to comment on these genealogies, but I'll keep looking. utcursch | talk 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the fault I caught too. Different gazetteers mention different genealogies. It was very difficult to construct a list of rulers that matched with all sources. But I'm going to add the matter about some topics like- Kalyan Sahai of Ratanpur because that matches in every record and even some modern works have made passing mentions of him ; the name "Mahakosala" etc.. Thank you. Pls I dank memer (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea to create a separate section about the 'later' Ratanpur branch. utcursch | talk 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Empire[edit]

HI, it is regarding this addition. Are these reliably sourced? And is it necessary to have a subsection in the 'Origins', looks POV to me, considering the user's other edits. - 117.201.117.242 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft[edit]

Can you have a look on this Draft Draft:Muzamil_Mahmood_Dar , provide suggestions regarding this. KashmirValleyEditor (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KashmirValleyEditor: Football is not my area of expertise, but I'll take a look when I get some time. Meanwhile, consider dropping a note at WT:IND. utcursch | talk 16:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding correction in your current revision and value fact sources[edit]

Correct is Chambhar caste while Chambar is Geographical place not caste. Consider our contributions to correct, fact and authentic sources. ARJ 02:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarjeetkr97 (talk • contribs)

Major changes by IP user[edit]

Please see major (undiscussed) additions and removal ([6] [7] [8] and others) by IP user. Possible POV, usage of Raj era sources and/or reinsertion of previously removed content. Thanks.. 117.201.118.134 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption[edit]

Hello Utcursch  ! Hope you are doing fine, I want to draw your attention towards a potential disruptive account who in all likelihood is another pov pushing caste warrior.

Hanshingling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making dubious articles like this - Rathore clan copying most of the chunk from Rathore Dynasty article, albeit by pushing Gurjar pov with third-rate sources, same with Chandel (Gujjar clan) to match Chandel (Rajput clan). It's been a while since I edited caste related articles which are a mess to deal with but your expertise and involvement in these contentious topics is second to none. Thus, I am leaving it to you regarding dealing with this account. In case, I see more such disruption won't mind taking them to a relevant noticeboard, though would prefer you to take a call being a WP:Involved editor. Thanks. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 17:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Re Packer&Tracker: I'm a little busy outside of Wikipedia right now, but I'll add these to my watchlist. Meanwhile, consider dropping a note at WT:IND. utcursch | talk 17:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see[edit]

Please have a look at the changes [9], [10], [11]. Thanks - 117.201.118.250 (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasaracharya 2[edit]

i have removed a lot of sentence which clearly has no citation in bhaskaracharya 2 wikipedia page.An anonymous user 103.81.215.177 is reverting my edits.It is always known that we need to upload information in wikipedia with reliable citations David dclork li (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Empire[edit]

Sir, could you kindly verify these changes [12] [13]? I can't access the sources to verify whether the new addition of Ayodhya as one of the capitals. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have been busy since past few days. Maybe try WT:IND. utcursch | talk 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vidya Niketan School[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vidya Niketan School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case of vandalism and sockpuppetry[edit]

Hello Sir,

Anuj Choudhary Ror and Rudradaman127 (talk) are making similar disruptive edits on Aror and Talk:Aror, are probably the same. Kindly acknowledge the issue.

Please see: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ror dynasty]]

Most recently an easily verifiable source on Aror was falsely tagged with Template:Failed verification as a mark of vandalism by Anuj Choudhary Ror. Nirmohiji (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not of Aror, it is of Arora community and Aror is a place not a community. Aaror place was not mentioned anywhere in this book. Book used for source @Utcursch Anuj Choudhary Ror (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I was given the same section on my talk page, you might want to continue the discussion there. --(Roundish ⋆t) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I am too busy to go through their edits / sources, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anujror would probably settle this. utcursch | talk 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagabhata 1: 19 july 2023[edit]

Hi, I am writing to provide some additional true and verified information on the topic of Naghabhata 1 which has been trending recently. After conducting thorough research, I came across an interesting discovery related to our previous edit on 19th July 2023. As you may recall, I made an edit on Naghabhata 1, and the topic has gained significant attention in recent days. I took the initiative to delve deeper into the subject and stumbled upon an intriguing aspect related to Naghabhata's ancestry, which has been documented in a "vanshawali" (genealogy) and officially registered in an Indian court. The "vanshawali" is a valuable historical record that traces Naghabhata's lineage through generations, shedding light on his ancestry and providing further insights into his legacy. Its official registration in an Indian court adds an additional layer of authenticity to this historical account. With our intention to always provide accurate and reliable information to our users, I believe that incorporating this newfound information will enhance the credibility and comprehensiveness of the topic. I kindly request your review of this additional information to ensure its accuracy and relevance. Should you have any suggestions or input on how we can integrate this information seamlessly into our existing content, I would be eager to hear your thoughts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your guidance and expertise are invaluable to me, and I am excited to contribute meaningfully to our platform's content. Looking forward to your feedback and guidance. Certifiedwikiuserindia (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Certifiedwikiuserindia: Sorry, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. I suggest dropping a note at WT:IND instead. utcursch | talk 17:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seuna Yadava Dynasty[edit]

Hi Utcursch. I noticed a new user Harshvardhan9011 has been making massive changes to this article without discussion, giving priority to his source over all existing sources. I have asked him to start a discussion.Mayasandra (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Utcursch, there is currently a discussion in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Since you played a major role in cleaning up this article way back, I am inviting you to get involved if you can. Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayasandra: and @Pied Hornbill:: Sorry, I've been busy outside of Wikipedia, I'll take a look when I get some time. A cursory look suggests that Harshvardhan9011 being blocked has solved much of the problem. utcursch | talk 17:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gangaridai[edit]

Hi, it is regarding this edit. I couldn't find anything about "Gangaridai" in the source that was used to support the change. Please see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks, I don't see any mention of the topic in the cited source either. utcursch | talk 17:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Hi, could you have a look at these changes:

@Fylindfotberserk: I'm a little busy at the moment, but will take a look when I get some time. Consider dropping a note at WT:IND for wider reach. utcursch | talk 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kharvela[edit]

Hein? Hi utcursh sir what nonsense? You should first check the reference which i used after text most of are from inscription translation so why did you revert it? Mohan12125 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Kharavela. utcursch | talk 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao I[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate it if you have look at Bajirao I. Recently quite a few images from Wikimedia have been added that don't seem to be authentic. The images are miniatures from a private collection without any sources to back up their respective authenticity. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathansammy: I will take a look at when I get some time. Meanwhile, consider dropping a note at WT:IND. utcursch | talk 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Utcursch:, I have added a note on WT:IND. Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinga (The Historical Region)[edit]

Sir please visit the wiki page Kalinga (historical region). A new wiki user Avenger2000 added sources which are not acceptable. The talk page of the article clearly mentioned about these sources(eg.Mahabharata,puran). In the talk page section of the article section You explained why thsese sources are not acceptable. Debu Pattanaik (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Debu Pattanaik: I'll take a look when I've some time. Meanwhile, consider dropping a note at WT:IND - you will get several third opinions there. utcursch | talk 19:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions.I replied to you in the talk page of the main article. Please take a look. Debu Pattanaik (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I crazy?[edit]

When depicting the view of historians concerning people, battles, etc, if the source states positive and negative things should both be mentioned?

My post on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan.[15]

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Agreed. I have had a cursory look at several of that user's contributions, especially new articles, and I suspect they don't accurately represent the cited sources. Unfortunately, I have been very busy outside of Wikipedia, and don't have time to go through all the articles and sources. But I'll keep them on my watchlist and vet them as and when I have some time. 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]


Christmas postcard featuring Santa Claus using a zeppelin to deliver gifts, by Ellen Clapsaddle, 1909
~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Utcursch: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you! Wish you and your loved ones a wonderful Christmas! utcursch | talk 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaraja I[edit]

Hi Utcursch, I noticed that recently you reverted an edit made by me in Rajaraja I's infobox saying "unsourced". The article stated "He was born around 947 CE in the Aipassi month, on the day of Sadhayam star." This roughly translates to 22 October - 20 November 947 in the Gregorian Calendar. I am seeking clarification. Prakashs27 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prakashs27: "This roughly translates to..." requires a reliable source. See WP:NOR. utcursch | talk 23:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for letting me know. Prakashs27 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Janamejaya (disambiguation)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Janamejaya (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look[edit]

Please have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (In Translation...) supports the assertion; will take a look at others, when I get some time. utcursch | talk 23:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP seems like a sock of User:PakistanHistorian who POV pushes Gurjar. Thanks for the changes, I've done some myself. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by anonymous IP on Zamorin page[edit]

The Zamorin page was recently given protection after I asked for it. This is because an anonymous IP kept vandalizing it, and after a Talk Page discussion, it reached agreement. But now the same anonymous user has returned with another anonymous IP and reverted the whole thing, including dozens of edits by other editors, to his own version, the version before the discussions.

He also managed to place a final vandalized edit on the Zamorin page before it was protected, by removing sourced content.

Could you revert the Zamorin page to any of the previous edits by any of the previous editors, before it was vandalized? HölderlinRem1 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responsibly edited the lead section to remove unsourced caste promotion and redundant content.
Talk section is also added for constructive discussion where he is not engaging with references and sources, rather accusing other users who oppose his caste promotions.
It is important to note that his blatant accusations against me have been previously reviewed and dismissed by moderators. I urge you to refrain from repeating these unfounded claims and focus on constructive dialogue to enhance the article’s quality. 2600:4040:4527:3B00:BD5D:7C85:3ABA:7D42 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Unsourced? There were two sources attached to the paragraph, both of which said that the Zamorin was originally the "Samantha Eradi chiefs of Eranad." You also agreed to this in the December 2023 Talk Page discussion, your own quote from above:
"...the Samanthan Nair Eradis of Nediyiruppu (originally autonomous chiefs of Eranadu) demonstrated their political independence under the title of Zamorin."
2. Dismissed by other moderators? The only one who was dismissed was you who had your vandalization reverted by editor Outlander07 on the Samantan page, who also said that you were a Adithya Kiran sock puppet.
The lead is agreed by editors in common. You wanted to mention the "last king committed suicide and burnt himself in the palace" stuff, which doesn't belong in the lead as the fate of a single king is not a summary of the article by any means. But okay, I agreed with you to keep it there.
I'm asking for the origins of the Zamorin to be mentioned in the lead, as it is directly connected with his dynasty, in a single sentence, with 2 sources attached. And you keep deleting it, and the edits made by other editors over months to your preferred version? HölderlinRem1 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged some admins for their view on the page. The anonymous IP keep deleting the origins of the Zamorin, and replacing it with the same "final king committed suicide and burnt himself" line. The fate of one king is not a summary of the article at all, and should not be in the lead. The origins of the dynasty are far more important, and he keep deleting it.
This entire discussion, which has been going on for 2 months, is only because of that 1 sentence: the Zamorin was originally the Samantha Eradi chief of Eranad, before becoming the Zamorin.
Both sources state this, and the anonymous IP himself accepted this, which is how we got to an agreed lead in December 2023.
Now he's back with another anonymous IP, and reverting it back to what it was before the December 2023 discussions. Is that how it's done?
I asked for page protection for this very reason, and it was granted by admin. But the anonymous IP sneaked in a final revert before the protection was applied. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requested line has been re-added with sources, so the lead is now complete. Thank you, we can finally close this discussion. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Utcursch Sir, please look at your hindi Wikipedia talk page. 2409:4085:8E81:C960:0:0:8849:F0A (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your message at hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रबन्धक सूचनापट. I am quite busy outside of Wikipedia right now - the time I devote to English Wikipedia has dropped substantially, and I am far less active on the Hindi Wikipedia. I had brought the sock's various accounts to the hiwiki administrators here: hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रबन्धक सूचनापट/पुरालेख ५#सदस्य:Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur के खाते, but I don't really have the time (or the patience) to cleanup the mess they have created. utcursch | talk 13:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About specification in sayhadrikhand[edit]

Dear @Utcursch, I appreciate you work.Nice to see Atleast one person read the source completely.

According to Ghurye, five hundred years ago Saraswats were mainly confined to the area around Goa.In the last three hundred years, they migrated south towards Mangalore and north towards Rajapur in present day Ratnagiri district, Alibag and further north.He identifies seven sub-castes among the Saraswats, namely Bardeshkar, Bhalawalikar, Kudaldeshkar, Lotlikar,Pednekar, Sashtikar and Shenvi-paiki

Since saraswat of konkan have these variants mentioning only Shenvi instead of saraswat will create ambiguity.1630 incident was only related to shenvi so using shenvi become valid there. 117.193.108.193 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch,
So we can add saraswat Brahmins for core explanation and shenvi for 1630 incidence. 117.193.108.193 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utcursch,
Even I saw the usage of this resource in panch gauda and panch Dravida.So Everything was perfectly written but shenvi and saraswat ambiguity retained.I have referred many resource regarding this some western author have mentioned them as synonym but they aren’t.Shenvi is a small part of Gaud Saraswat/saraswat so let’s not specify them in sayhadrikhand.We can specify them in their intercaste fight with 1630 issue,1631 issue ,Chitpavan-shenvi scenario(Gramanya).Hope this explanation helps. 117.193.108.193 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add anything supported by a reliable source. As per WP:V and WP:SYN, we should stick to what a reliable source states, not our interpretation of primary sources. utcursch | talk 23:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @UtcurschOne more book for you,

Letters Home: Banaras pandits and the Maratha regions in early modern India,Author(s): ROSALIND O'HANLON,Source: Modern Asian Studies,MARCH 2010, Vol. 44, No. 2,(MARCH 2010), pp. 201-240,Published by: Cambridge University Press,Stable URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/27764655

This explains about the dharmasabha of Varanasi.She gave the account of the South Indian community that were there in Varanasi.
Deep analysis of Deshpande(2008)‘s view has been done.The issue was wether the shenvi were trikarma or satkarma Brahmins.The dharmasabha clearly have verdict of them as satkarma Brahmins.
I have kept all the materials in the talk page but no one is there to reply.The editing option has been disabled.You are administrator hope you can edit it.
Someone has incorrectly mentioned contents there like Varna dispute(Which doesn’t exist),Rejecting brahmin claim(verdict is there),sabydrikhand was fake(Historical proofs are there) etc.I gave them the resource about sayhadrikhand that I posted here but there is no reply.I gave them verdict analysis for this very high end source still no one is replying!. 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtcurschGaud Saraswat Brahminthis is the page.Visit the talk page once you will find my contents.Read the content of article it is so negative cherry picked,I would have developed it but I don’t know why I am unable to edit it. 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about changes to the article Gaud Saraswat Brahmin? It's not really on my todo-list, and I don't have time to go through all the sources and discussion history. Consider dropping a note on WT:INDIA and WT:HINDU instead. utcursch | talk 14:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your edits on Sahyadrikhanda do not adhere to WP:V and WP:SYN. Rosalind O'Hanlon uses the term "Shenvi", and that's what the article should use. If you are changing that, please cite another WP:RS-compliant source. utcursch | talk 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtcurschThank you for the link.
comming back to the actual sayhadrikhand there author herself have given clarification.

The purana then relates different Brahman histories. Its heroes are the Senvis, given in the list above their more dignified title of Saraswat

-Page-104
Even she has used the word saraswat while narrating the story.

Siva then describes the origins of the Saraswats' rivals, the Chitpavans. They also owe their place in the lands of the Konkan to Parashuram

-page-105
So practically using shenvi can be useful in clash with Dravid Brahmins but core story should be applicable for all.Even the author Rosalind has used that in the story.Primary source clearly mentions saraswat so better to use saraswat Atleast for the origin story.When coming to issue let it be shenvi.what’s your take on this? 2409:40F2:2A:DB34:C553:374B:3A74:28C3 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states "Shenvis (identified as Sarasvatas)", following the cited source. utcursch | talk 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection[edit]

can you add semi protection to kalachuri dynasty . There seems to be constant addition of same obsolete theory ,to push their caste POV , without any consideration of current sources and consensus among scholars.References are vague , with the meaning behind the era used already explained in the section , and the second one being citing the gazetter as source. The newly added sources are googling the word "abhira kalachuris" and adding whatever comes Additionally those problems has been considered already in origin section . Summerkillsme (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those theories disputed, if not completely obsolete. The origin part is on my todo-list, but I've been quite busy outside of Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, POV and writing style of some newly created articles[edit]

Hi, I've come across these two articles (while checking this) - Gupta conquests of Bengal and Extermination of Nagadhatta - created by a new user [16]. I'm concerned about the notability, writing style and possible POV in the articles. For example sentences like - "initial conquest of Bengal by the Indian Emperor Samudragupta who exterminated and defeated its Kings" and "Indian Emperor Samudragupta was against Nagadhatta" seem POV considering the usage of the term 'Indian' restricted for Samudragupta and the Gupta Empire only, while technically modern India didn't exist then, but the whole subcontinent including Bengal was called 'India', it is also corroborated by the fact that they added this category (which itself is POV) in both articles. Apart from the above, the notability of the subject matter can be questioned along with the writing style is quite amateurish and POV along with the this article name. Similar issues seem to exist in other edits by the user. Please have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will add to my watchlist, and check when I get some time. I don't think Gupta conquests of Bengal should even exist, since "Bengal" was not a single political unit. utcursch | talk 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wishing Utcursch a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About dharma-yuddha[edit]

Regarding your message, I don't think that my addition was inappropriate and also was literally the defination of what the wiki entry was about. The whole website is made around the concept. Kindly restore it as it is obviously related . Kartikeyarawat (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kartikeyarawat: Please see WP:ELNO and WP:REFSPAM. utcursch | talk 14:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

I noticed you're not very active there, may I know why? Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough time, that's all. utcursch | talk 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Hello Utcursch,

I have done some work on Karnats of Mithila and Oiniwar dynasty to try and bring them up to the standard of other medieval articles that you have contributed to/created. When you have time, I would appreciate if you could have a look at both of these articles and make any alterations that need to carried out.

Thanks Ixudi (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will add them to my watchlist, but I'm quite busy outside of Wikipedia at the moment. Consider Wikipedia:Peer review. utcursch | talk 14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benvanshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suryavanshi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Sir a user Jimcarree is continuously doing reverted edits. Please visit the pageBakhtiyar Khalji's Tibet campaign Hejkl (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look[edit]

Hi, someone has restored most of the content [17] which you reverted here. Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these changes [18] [19]. Seems copypasted from other articles, with some of the sources being unreliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this[edit]

[20] This is the original problem. Mayasurs? See Surya Siddhanta. And their talk page as well as [21] (a view pushed by two other accounts and several IPs hence the protection. See Talk:Paracas Candelabra. Looking at their edits and talk page they seem to be here only to push a fringe pov. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... need to see if they are citing a modern editor's comments on the Surya Siddhanta, or the original text itself. Will take a look when I've some time. The Paracas Candelabra addition was obviously original research, I agree with your revert. utcursch | talk 22:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both utcursch and Doug Weller. I would like to discuss your presumption "they seem to be here only to push a fringe pov". Do you have some time? I intend to make a small presentation. Will take some time. Any of you conversant with astronomy? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A081950 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utcursch&oldid=1219651349"