User talk:Adamantine123

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 31.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Hello Adamantine123. I have just closed a discussion with consensus that you are topic banned from caste, broadly construed. You may appeal this sanction in six months immediately. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Some advice: When in doubt, assume that this sanction covers the action in question. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC) 16:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the discussion per a reasonable request on my talk page to allow for some outside perspectives. My sincere apologies for the confusion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster, no apologies required. The discussion is closed with no consensus. I am glad. Also, I realised that from next time onwards I should choose words properly while commenting on such platforms. As pointed out by closing admin and other admins who participated in that discussion, I should have refrained from making the first comment which appeared as Battleground attitude. From next time onwards, I will discuss only edits and not the editors. Adamantine123 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Amarpal Maurya, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine123 On this surname page, sources are mostly about Kushwaha community/caste and less about surname. ? Especially in the lead section, what do you think? ®asteem Talk 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both surname and clan name just like the various other articles such as Virk, Randhawa, Sandhu. There is a disclaimer that written names may or may not belong to caste. This has been done to avoid BLP violation. There is nothing wrong in giving a little background of origin of surname or the clan with which it is associated. This has been discussed by another article's talk page and this comment from Vanamonde93 explains it all. Also at the Talk: Banerjee Fylindfotberserk explained why it should be done. If we seperate the surname and clan name article we will have to write several WP:FORKs.Adamantine123 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123 Got it Thank you! for the explanation. ®asteem Talk 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you revert the additions and the hyperlinks that I had added? I don't think they were wrong. You also removed the reference that I had added. Why? Wisher08 (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may add them if they are genuine sources. But, that's some blog which is not a WP:RS.Adamantine123 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your revision on Bhumihar where you reverted my edit and reinstated previous version which was based on dubious source. Kindly explain how is book by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya is unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya was an Indian historian not some British civil servant whose sources are unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Please do not say that all Indian historians who existed in Raj era are unreliable too. Please do not revert my edits in baseless way. Thank you. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added were British Raj era sources and according to WP:RAJ, they are not considered as WP:RS for caste articles. The sources you removed were modern sources and they were not dubious as you are saying. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sources by Indian historians who wrote during British era are also unreliable? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read User:Sitush/CasteSources for more information on sources to be used on caste article and why some sources are banned. Adamantine123 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123, This user is blocked as a confirmed sock! ®asteem Talk 22:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the talks on Talk: Bhumihar is this closed now. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes closed now ®asteem Talk 01:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123 Also check this I made a revert of Ratnahastin's edits[1] suddenly a user appeared and made a revert with the falls narrative that I conduct an edit war? Only a single revert make any sense to be categorize as an edit war?[2] then he left a Retaliatory edit warning's notice [3], then another retaliatory warning [4]. Then (Abhishek0831996) on Talk: Political marriages in India left a note with "provoking or offensive words " Shameless attempt"[5] then later he removed the offensive word.[6] Interestingly, LukeEmily's, Ekdalian's & now your talk page has similar scenarios of Retaliatory warnings?, making me wonder if there's a larger issue at play. ®asteem Talk 21:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should leave it to admins as I know many of them are observing the activities of these editors and we should just avoid violating WP:3RR and making personal comments. Apart from that nothing seems to be your concern if you are using right sources. If someone is making retaliatory moves their edits are being saved and can be used as diff at appropriate platform in future. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123 Agree! I'll leave a comment on Talk:Rajput you may like to leave your opinion. ®asteem Talk 08:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dympies (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I am aware of this notice and why this is here by the way. Which edit of mine made you think that you should put it here. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caste is mentioned in the Indiatimes source, which is ICTF compliant. This is the reason I didn't remove when the IP added it. Tt is one of the two RS that show up, but the text is written by the same person, and is also a recent (post-death) source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, may be I missed that. Adamantine123 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine, please look more carefully before you roll something back and warn an editor: they explained their edit in an edit summary, and it was valid. Please see WP:RBREVOKE; thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. I saw a lot of ip disruption recently and that's why this one appeared to me one such edit. I will consider your advice from next time. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]