| Revision as of 15:29, 10 April 2024 editChariotrider555 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,805 edits →Dwarkadhish Temple← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:37, 12 April 2024 edit undoSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Dwarkadhish Temple: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app editNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| ::@] Thanks. I don't know how I missed that, and as you say, the year should be 1473. If that is a reliable source of course. I'm not sure. ] ] 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | ::@] Thanks. I don't know how I missed that, and as you say, the year should be 1473. If that is a reliable source of course. I'm not sure. ] ] 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::], I believe the work is a reliable source. Commissariat is a notable historian, and the series that the book was the first volume of continued to be published after independence as well (Volume II in 1956, III postumously in 1980). ] generally applies to castes, rather than general history, but more recent sources can be found which will likely substantiate the paragraph as well. ] (]) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | :::], I believe the work is a reliable source. Commissariat is a notable historian, and the series that the book was the first volume of continued to be published after independence as well (Volume II in 1956, III postumously in 1980). ] generally applies to castes, rather than general history, but more recent sources can be found which will likely substantiate the paragraph as well. ] (]) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::See ]. Whilst RAJ may have the appearance of applying "generally to castes", it actually is a comment on all sources of Raj origin. They aren't good and there is a longstanding consensus that they should be avoided. - ] (]) 06:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:37, 12 April 2024
Have a look
Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Undefined references
Hi Chariotrider555. You've added references for "Sandera 1981" and "Dwyer 1995" to Dayaram, but neither work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cites to the article or let me know what works these refer to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ActivelyDisinterested, my mistake. I'll fix those reference errors. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Chariotrider555. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Source
Here is the source for changing r̥ṣi to ṛṣi take a look 2400:1A00:BD11:12F1:3850:9BB8:188:5235 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit
Dear @Chariotrider555, The content deleted by you in Saraswat Brahmin page are perfectly cited.surdas biography clear states that he is saraswat Brahmin and was born in the village of Sihi, near Delhi, as the son of Ram Das, a Saraswat Brahmin but in the main page they are giving primary sources.
Second content I am mentioning page number. In Western and South India, the Saraswat Brahmins are Rigvedi Brahmins and they follow Ashwalayana Sutra and are of Shakala Shaka.Saraswat Brahmins are divided into two groups based on the Vedanta they follow, the first of which follows the Dvaita Vedanta of Madhvacharya and second group are followers of Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara.2409:40F2:1A:EC20:8002:5755:7497:D0FF (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Chariotrider555
- Pillai, P. G. (n.d.). The Bhakti Movement: Renaissance Or Revivalism?. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis,chapter-17
- High end Taylor and Francis reference. 2409:40F2:1A:EC20:8002:5755:7497:D0FF (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
Hello, I'm Noorullah21. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gujarat Sultanate without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content is more then enough reliably sourced by historians, please don't remove sourced content and take concerns to the talk page. Noorullah (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Bania
Have a look at these additions by an IP. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Removal at Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests
Hello. Your Edit here removed about a quater of the content from the page Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests. These removals included information about Rajput Resistance against Akbar, Jahangir, Bahadur Shah, Babur, Arab Invasions because the mentioned page was poorly cited.
I have reverted those edits and added appropriate citations. I would like to point out that your edit was not a net constructive contribution to Misplaced Pages as you removed content which could be verified very easily upon miniscule investigation. Instead of attempting to improve the verifiability and citations on this page per WP:NEEDCITEREMOVE, you blanked several sections.
Such removal could only be justified under conditions mentioned at #when to not use citation needed like when the content is obviously nonsense, violations under BLP, obviously non factual. >>> Extorc.talk 11:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Extorc, it is the WP:BURDEN of whoever added the material to provide the citation. It is completely acceptable for any material that does not have such to be removed, and Misplaced Pages only encourages users to try to reference unreferenced material before removing (Misplaced Pages:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_tag, WP:PROVEIT). Moreover much of the content I removed had been sitting there unreferenced for months and even years, and likely would have continued being in that state for months and years to come had I not made the executive decision to remove it. Given that about 1/4 of the page's contents was unreferenced content, the article was in a pretty poor state, and its removal was a net-positive. I applaud you however for finding proper references for some of the content. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Extorc See my post below, Doug Weller talk 13:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Dwarkadhish Temple
- User:Doug Weller, as per WP:CITELEAD, "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.". I generally lean toward the side that as few as possible citations should be in the lead while it still fulfils its function as a summary of the body. I removed the sentence about Vajranabha because it neither had a citation in the lead nor a mention in the body. However, the destruction of the temple by Mahmud Begada while not having a citation in the lead, is properly and reliably referenced in the body Dwarkadhish_Temple#History. On closer inspection the year in the lead is one off from the body (possible Hijri-Gregorian conversion error by whoever originally added the sentence?).Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chariotrider555 Thanks. I don't know how I missed that, and as you say, the year should be 1473. If that is a reliable source of course. I'm not sure. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller, I believe the work is a reliable source. Commissariat is a notable historian, and the series that the book was the first volume of continued to be published after independence as well (Volume II in 1956, III postumously in 1980). WP:RAJ generally applies to castes, rather than general history, but more recent sources can be found which will likely substantiate the paragraph as well. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:HISTRS. Whilst RAJ may have the appearance of applying "generally to castes", it actually is a comment on all sources of Raj origin. They aren't good and there is a longstanding consensus that they should be avoided. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller, I believe the work is a reliable source. Commissariat is a notable historian, and the series that the book was the first volume of continued to be published after independence as well (Volume II in 1956, III postumously in 1980). WP:RAJ generally applies to castes, rather than general history, but more recent sources can be found which will likely substantiate the paragraph as well. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chariotrider555 Thanks. I don't know how I missed that, and as you say, the year should be 1473. If that is a reliable source of course. I'm not sure. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Kamath, Suryanath U. (1992). The origin and spread of Gauda Saraswats,Archana Prakashana.Page number 14-15