| Revision as of 15:24, 21 December 2024 editNlkyair012 (talk | contribs)81 edits →Feedback from New Page Review process: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:44, 23 December 2024 edit undoNlkyair012 (talk | contribs)81 edits →Discussion on Source Removal and Edits: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :Thank you so much, sir. I truly appreciate your kind words and feedback. As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor, it means a lot to receive recognition from someone with over 15 years of experience. Thanks again for your encouragement!😊🙏🏻 ] (]) 15:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | :Thank you so much, sir. I truly appreciate your kind words and feedback. As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor, it means a lot to receive recognition from someone with over 15 years of experience. Thanks again for your encouragement!😊🙏🏻 ] (]) 15:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Discussion on Source Removal and Edits == | |||
| Hello everyone, | |||
| I’d like to open a discussion about the recent removal of content from the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The removed sections were sourced from British Raj-era documents, which the editor @] has deemed unreliable. | |||
| While I respect the editor’s concerns, I believe these sources have historical significance and are widely used in academic discussions. Additionally: | |||
| '''1. The removed content was neutral and verifiable, adhering to ] and ].''' | |||
| '''2.''' '''Policies like ] and ] do not categorically ban such sources.''' | |||
| I propose we evaluate the sources individually and decide collaboratively if they should be retained. | |||
| Looking forward to everyone’s input. | |||
| Best regards, | |||
| ------ ] (]) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:44, 23 December 2024
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kamaria Ahir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work
North8000 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, sir. I truly appreciate your kind words and feedback. As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor, it means a lot to receive recognition from someone with over 15 years of experience. Thanks again for your encouragement!😊🙏🏻 Nlkyair012 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on Source Removal and Edits
Hello everyone,
I’d like to open a discussion about the recent removal of content from the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The removed sections were sourced from British Raj-era documents, which the editor @Ratnahastin has deemed unreliable.
While I respect the editor’s concerns, I believe these sources have historical significance and are widely used in academic discussions. Additionally:
1. The removed content was neutral and verifiable, adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
2. Policies like WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA do not categorically ban such sources.
I propose we evaluate the sources individually and decide collaboratively if they should be retained.
Looking forward to everyone’s input.
Best regards,
Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: