| Revision as of 15:45, 24 September 2015 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,268 edits Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:21, 26 September 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Capankajsmilyo/Archive 1) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Thank you :D-- Pankaj Jain '']'' 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | Thank you :D-- Pankaj Jain '']'' 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Dear Pankaj, Are you sure that you have HISTRS sources for all the entries in this ]? - ] (]) 09:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This template might require some cleanup. Most of the links are certain. Few links dont cite religion on their pages. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 09:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry, you haven't answered my question. HISTRS sources? Whenever you add a "religion" entry in the infobox, you should provide a reliable source with page number. - ] (]) 09:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, I am not able to understand your question. I haven't added religion in infobox, instead added links to pages stating Jainism (already) to this template. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If the information is already there in the pages, then we depend on you to check its sourcing before you add the pages to the template. This is a ''highly visible'' template! You can't add pages willy nilly. - ] (]) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please elaborate what you mean by ''highly visible'' as this template has just been created and added to 10-12 pages only. Can you please cite a few examples to clarify on ''willy nilly'' links. Also if there are some issues in this template, please help me improve it. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 10:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: "Highly visible" because people can scan it at one go and find all the people that Misplaced Pages is claiming to be royal Jains. You shouldn't add pages to it unless it is ''authentic'' information. Frankly you are playing with fire here. Please tread cautiously. - ] (]) 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you can cite atleast one example, that would be helpful in understanding what you mean. Are you talking about '''Royal''' or '''Jains'''? By HISTRS, you mean historical/traditional or something else? I have created the template sensing the need for such as it was very difficult to trace royal jains through any existing list or category. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Several of us have explained the idea of ] on your archived talk page. If you still don't know what it means, it is a serious problem. I am pinging {{U|Abecedare}} and {{U|SpacemanSpiff}} to advise you. - ] (]) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I know HISTRS, I am getting confused about what you mean by your statement. Let me try to put my doubt this way. All the links I listed are royal figures (undoubtedly). Some of them are tradition while most are historical (I hope you are not talking about it). Their respective pages state them to be Jains or there is no reference on the page regarding religion at all. I have removed those which had a conflict regarding religion (If you are talking about this). Please help me restructure the template to improve its authenticity. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 10:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| To make it authentic, you need to go to each page listed there, check if the page mentions that the king was a Jain, and check if the information is supported by a HISTRS. You need to remove any page that doesn't satisfy these criteria. I have randomly checked a few pages, and here is what I found: | |||
| * ]: The page doesn't say he was a Jain. | |||
| * ]: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page. | |||
| * ]: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page. | |||
| * ]: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page. | |||
| * ]: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page. | |||
| * ]: The page says Religion is "Jainism", but it is marked as "citation needed." | |||
| So, pretty much nothing is checking out. I have no idea how you listed these people as Royal Jains. - ] (]) 11:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Removed Links -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There are so many problems with the template! | |||
| :* Includes historical figures, without justification. As was discussed at ], we should not be assigning religion to historical figures w/o proper context. For example, Jain sources claim Chandragupta to be a Jain, which is not the same as his being one (the page itself needs clean up). This is in ''addition'' to the ] issue. | |||
| :* Similar issue with some of the mythological figures (why are they labelled "traditional" in any case?); how is Hanuman a royal? | |||
| :* More basically: the template ] for this collection of historical and mythological figures. Is there a single reliable source that discusses all these figures collectively as royals? | |||
| :Pinging ], who is more familiar with the TfD process, to see if the template should be simply removed from the pages or deleted. | |||
| :And {{reply|Capankajsmilyo}} your sub-par and POV editing in the area is really getting disruptive. For example, despite my advice earlier about moving pages, you moved ] tp ] without any discussion. And you have still not removed the non-RS book by Arun Kumar Jain from ], or corrected the content to match what the sources actually say! If you continue in this vein, I think you are likely to be topic banned from Indian religion and history based articles. ] (]) 14:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) {{small|fixed some grammatical and punctuation error. ] (]) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Ashoka was deleted hours ago. I know there is difference between historical and traditional. What is the difference between traditional and mythical? Moved Rama in Jainism giving a reason as per the bold move given in Misplaced Pages instructions. Removed Sagara book and added reliable sources. -- Pankaj Jain ''] <span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ] '''·''' )</span>'' 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Pankaj, I can make a suggestion that will keep you out of trouble. Create a list article with a title like "List of kings that sponsored Jainism". You can include there all the kings that your sources say supported Jainism, and include citations. Once the information is settled and verified, we can think about other formats. List articles are safe things to make. They can be edited by anybody or challenged by anybody. Categories and templates are only meant for impeccable information. - ] (]) 15:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That's a good suggestion ''but only if'' some ] sources can be found discussing the topic of royal patronage of Jainism (I would expcet such sources to exist). Else it would be a recipe for on-wiki synthesis and reification. ] (]) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}}The same logic at CfD or AfD would be applicable here -- conflating history and mythology. Pankaj, you have to stop this crusade or it's not going to work out well for you. Please listen to what everyone is saying.—]''']''' 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Jains == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==aviod== | |||
| Please avoid this web page (www.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/article/south.htm) which appears to have numerous inaccuracies. Tukol claims the Kadambas and Chalukyas were Jains and that the Gangas conquered Nepal. There may be many more of such absurd claims. Please try to use real book sources written by reputed historians.] (]) 20:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Further, the web page calls all Hoysala kings as Jains though the dynasty of kings took to Hinduism from the time of Vishnuvardhana, and all the Rashtrakutas as Jains just because Amoghavarsha came under the influence of Jain Acharyas. Clearly, this article is not of high quality.] (]) 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== | ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== | ||
Revision as of 04:21, 26 September 2015
| This is Capankajsmilyo's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 days  |
Nehru's Blunders
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Barnstar
|
The Jain Barnstar | |
| For your contribution to the 'Jainism' related articles. --(nimit) |
Thank you :D-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been topic banned for three months from now from editing all pages about Indian religions, broadly construed, including edits about Indian religions and about people belonging to any of those religions. Also from talking about those religions in any discussions. This ban applies to all kinds of pages (articles, talkpages, noticeboards, templates, etc) and to all types of editing, such as article edits, page moves, page creations, etc.
You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing on subjects related to Indian religions. When I look at your talkpage and its archive, I see a lot of good advice and many warnings from quite a few editors, especially to do with using reliable historical sources. Experienced editors seem to have explained the sourcing problems patiently, and really tried to help you edit better. This is probably because they like your enthusiasm and good faith; I do, too. But it has come to a point where other editors seem to be describing the problems with your sources over and over, to no avail. What struck me especially was that you were asked three weeks ago repeatedly, and with much explanation, to "please go slow" and to make yourself master of HISTRS before adding so much material, and creating and moving pages, etc, at such speed. And yet, after a day of slowing down slightly, asking a question at the Teahouse, etc, you accelerated again, and have been editing at breakneck speed ever since. Yesterday (23 September per UTC) you made 340 edits! Sometimes there were three edits to three different pages in the same minute. How could you possibly make considered, thoughtful edits at such a rate? You'd have to be a well-programmed robot — a human can't do it. And considering your rate of editing, I'm not sure when you would find the time to study HISTRS as it deserves to be studied, either, or to mull over what people tell you. And this means that other people have to use a lot of time to clean up after you and explain to you. That's unacceptable. When I first looked at your contributions, I considered giving you a strong warning to slow down, but after noticing other editors doing just that, without effect, I see no other recourse than to topic ban you. Three months is a rather short topic ban, and the reason I've kept it short is because you're still rather new. If you were a more experienced editor I'd have banned you for six months or a year. Please make sure you understand what a topic ban is: read WP:TBAN. That is a policy you can't afford to speedread, because if you violate this topic ban, it will be enforced with blocks.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)