Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 3 September 2015 (Notice: Notification of Arbitration Committee imposed discretionary sanctions. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
51		Jainism and Hinduism (talk)						Add sources
7		860s BC (talk)						Add sources
3		CEMAT (talk)						Add sources
39		Bappa Rawal (talk)						Add sources
8		890s BC (talk)						Add sources
1,417		Kali (talk)						Add sources
8		Sudharmaswami (talk)						Cleanup
5		Kushadhwaja (talk)						Cleanup
104		Palaeography (talk)						Cleanup
25		Tulsi (Jain monk) (talk)						Expand
13		Panch Kalyanaka (talk)						Expand
68		Kosala (talk)						Expand
55		Mithila (ancient) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
11		Sophagasenus (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
81		Dhana Nanda (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
98		Suryavansha (talk)						Merge
141		Rourkela (talk)						Merge
7		Asrava (talk)						Merge
22		Jain literature (talk)						Wikify
977		Umayyad Caliphate (talk)						Wikify
1,197		Hanuman (talk)						Wikify
112		Maharani Devi (talk)						Orphan
1		Kalya (Kalyana pura) (talk)						Orphan
7		Fried Water Films and Entertainment (talk)						Orphan
9		Samayasāra (talk)						Stub
5		Narantaka-Devantaka (talk)						Stub
6		Tristutik Gaccha (talk)						Stub
15		Anantanatha (talk)						Stub
55		Luv Kush (talk)						Stub
14		Vimalanatha (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Archives

1

Nehru's Blunders

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anantanatha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Patal

Naminatha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bakula

Padmaprabha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lotus

Vasupujya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sukumar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Teahouse Question

Hi there - just a heads up that I have moved your recent question at the Teahouse from the bottom of the page to the top. Most talk pages require that new discussions be placed at the bottom of the page. At the Teahouse, however, new questions are placed at the top to maximize visibility. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jain literature

'Jain Agamas' and 'Jain literature' shouldn't be merged. As per my understanding,

• Jain literature = Jain Agamas + Commentaries + Books written on Jainism
• Jain Agamas = Sacred texts of the Jains Nimit 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to create these three sections in jain literature itself. I got confused because it wasnt mentioned in the article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 23:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jain monarchs and such

Hi, you appear to have been overzealous in your recent categorisations of monarchs and dynasties as being Jain. Please ensure that their articles actually state that they are Jain by religion (and also not simply patrons of Jainism as well as other religions). If they do state that they are Jain, please ensure that such claims are referenced before tagging them and their entire dynasties as being Jain. I have reversed a number of your recent edits as a result. Please look through your other edits as well.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jain dating

Listen, according to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago. You can't write dates for the jinas as if they are factually accurate statements, it's nuts to write Naminatha lived from 584,979-574,979 BCE. We can't even securely date Mahavira or Gautama Buddha, nevermind someone half a million years ago. Ogress _smash! 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Nanda Empire. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. As with many of your other recent edits, the article does not support anything about the Nandas being Jains. If you believe this to be true, then please add supporting sources and then classify them as being a Jain Dynasty. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock Nandas were Jains - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8UhvGRoyAqMC - page 113 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather sceptical of this source. However, please incorporate Sangave's contentions into the body of the article along with the reference as it directly contradicts the usual tale of the Nandas being of shudra heritage (which, incidentally, is also recounted by later Jain sources where Chanakya is the one who is a Jain). The religions section of the infobox technically only lists the major religions of the empire, not necessarily of its rulers. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear both, please note that the sources must be WP:HISTRS for this subject. This source doesn't appear to be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please go slow?

It appears that you are very eager to contribute, but then you are using sources that definitely don't qualify per our standards and are therefore introducing errors or complexities that should be avoided. e.g. Categories such as Category:Chakravartin Jain etc don't belong as these are not how historians classify things. Please have a read through of our reliable sources guideline and in particular WP:HISTRS. If you can, please tag Category:Chakravartin Jain with {{db-g7}} and remove any articles categorized in it as this would avoid spending time on a CfD.—SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Cat chakravartin included many rulers who as per Jain texts are not chakravartis. As described in Salakapurusa there are only 12 Jain Chakravartin. So I created this category. Can you please elaborate on unreliable source thing? Recently someone said on bot request page that even some blogs are reliable. At least WP admins should not make conflicting remarks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Context matters, not all blogs are reliable, not all blogs are unreliable. This is not conflicting information. This is the English language Misplaced Pages and there's already an emperor category, there's no reason to create categories for traditional names; traditional names should be used when they are used regularly, as such in scholarly literature and an equivalent English term isn't common, e.g. Tirthankaras or Nayanmars etc. Finally, the term "Chakravartin Jain" itself is ambiguous as it doesn't mean anything without the necessary context and as such shouldn't be a category. Kautilya3 has already evaluated one source above, and these are things you shouldn't be using in history articles here and I'm sure he'll be able to evaluate other sources too. —SpacemanSpiff 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK if you think so chakravartin and chakravartin jain can be done away with. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Chakravartin is an old category, so it can not be deleted by me just like that and I had already nominated it for deletion a few days back. It is only because of that I saw the new one. —SpacemanSpiff 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You are adding so many unreliable sources and claiming everyone who ever lived in India was a Jain. Please, check WP:RS. Today I have seen you use a source that was Misplaced Pages pages printed into a book, a self-pub paper by a man in South Florida who writes about aliens and claims Semiramis invaded the Indus Valley, and blogs. Please. I severely dislike reverting your edits and I dislike even more when you return with the same claim by an equally dubious source. Ogress _smash! 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Ogress Kautilya3 please comment on this source https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZgNHE-48jNcC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=jainism+nanda+dynasty&source=bl&ots=xR-f3Kpf39&sig=1pFIm-qBdJUQE90MCs94WXSXZOc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEUQ6AEwB2oVChMIoPGQlMrWxwIVVwaOCh1hOwBH#v=onepage&q=jainism%20nanda%20dynasty&f=false -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot access it. Ogress _smash! 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gimme your mail address, I will send you a screenshot. Its a google book, for god's sake :P -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A HISTRS source (please see the guidelines) must be written by scholars trained in historical scholarship. If they are academics of history employed at reputable Universities, they would qualify. If not, you would need scholarly reviews published in journals that certify their scholarship in history. This book is at best good for writing about general facts about Jain religion. It is not reliable for historical information. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It also says if available, can you please refer me to a scholarly source describing the religion of Nanda Empire clearly. If there's no such source, the link you referred also states that other sources can be considered. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I used google books, including .com and trying my own search: it's not available to me. I'm not an idiot. My Misplaced Pages email is enabled. Ogress _smash! 19:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please try https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZgNHE-48jNcC and let me know. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing House does not seem to have a reputation for fact checking etc. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks and . JimRenge (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion is not a reliable source, let alone a WP:HISTRS source. It is essentially self-published (N.K Singh, the editor, founded the publishing company) by an author/publisher on no scholarly repute; held by a miniscule number of libraries; and I haven't seen any scholarly reviews. Also the word "oriental" in the title for a work published so recently is not a promising sign. As a general rule: such multi-volume reference works produced by no-name publishers (and often purportedly written by 1-2 persons) are almost always plagiarized from wikipedia, century old public-domain works, primary sources etc; Gyan publishers is notorious for churning out such volumes, and Global Vision Pub House seems to be of its ilk. In future, if you have questions about a particular source just ask here or at WP:RSN and over time you'll develop a better idea of what type of sources are acceptable.

Another unrelated issue: Articles such as Pleistocene, Upper Paleolithic, 23rd century BC should not be tagged with {{WP Jainism}} template. Only pages significantly and directly linked with a topic, where project members can help with overall article content, formatting and sourcing, should be classed as under the project's purview. Just being able to imagine a link is not sufficient. :)

Btw, I second the recommendation above to slow down a bit. Your enthusiasm, good-will, and willingness to listen is indeed appreciated. But you are making some (understandable) newbie errors, and because of your high editing volume, it is making editors cleaning up after them more grumpy than we would like to be. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some authentic sources that talk about Jainism-Nandas connection, found by googling "Nandas Jain": , , . - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the picture Abecedare. The link you gave would be helpful (hopefully) for knowing the reliability (Misplaced Pages criteria) of sources. Talk pages thing noted. I would also like to know that if there's a vacuum as in this case (Nanda Empire article doesn't mention a word about religion), would filling that gap be a mistake? Those who revert changes (in this case ogress), shouldn't they cite sources (scholarly) denying the fact or at least claiming otherwise (in this case other religion) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You are suggesting I need to cite that we can't see they had a specific religion? Also, I too appreciate you are willing to listen and I like that you are working so hard on Jain issues, it's just a few snags we need to sort out. I also double-down on the tagging ancient centuries: AFAIK there is suggestion Parshvanatha could have been a real person but no evidence and certainly no specific dating. We can't even firmly date Mahavira and Buddha. Ogress _smash! 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, please see WP:BURDEN. JimRenge (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress first of all, you should not revert any changes because of your POV without talking about it. Secondly, yes I am saying that you should tell the sources from where you have decided that Nandas were of no religion or of some other religion. I have seen on your talk page, that you love engaging in edit wars. Further, also please refer me to the sources, which prove to you that Tirthankara were not rulers. Rishabha was the founder of biggest and most ancient ruling dynasty (Ikshvaku) of India. He was the one, who taught how to rule and his son was the first chakravartin ruler. All those who followed ruled for a pretty long period and were all Kshatriyas except from Mahavira, who took diksha at the age of 30. You just keep reverting the tag jain monarchs on tirthankara without even talking about it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Kautilya3. You are great! Please go through these sources now, Ogress and add them and Jainism on Nanda Empire, if you are not on Misplaced Pages just for reverting contributions of others.

"I have seen on your talk page, that you love engaging in edit wars." Where on Earth did you see that? "Secondly, yes I am saying that you should tell the sources from where you have decided that Nandas were of no religion or of some other religion." I'm not claiming anything of the sort, what POV? Risabha is a mythological figure. You keep claiming these figures lived at specific times and were regents when they are not accepted by scholars. This isn't Jainopedia, we don't accept scripture at face value. Ogress _smash! 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Canpankajsmilyo, please calm down. Many of us have a number of pages on our watch lists, which we try to protect from vandalism or corruption by unsourced edits etc. We might not have any interest in editing those articles ourselves. So, you shouldn't go around demanding that other people should edit articles. (They might, but it is their wish and interest.) When you add content, you have to provide reliable sources as per WP:RS policy. If you don't give sources or if your sources are no good, we would revert those edits. Please don't be offended by it. You can fix whatever problems we point out when we revert the edits, and reinstate the edits (assuming that they are valid edits). If we don't point out particular problems (some of us are lazy), then please feel free to ask why a revert was made. That is how it works. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I would echo what Abecedare says above, the publication is clearly problematic, the author doesn't have any known credentials, the publishing house is unknown in the scholarly publications area, the author has published such encylopaedias on topics ranging from death to sin and Qur'an to Jainism, which is unimaginable by any standards. Such references should never be used. And then there's another problem here, you shouldn't be conflating mythology with history.—SpacemanSpiff 04:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kalpavtiksha

See the tslk page of this article. All the opinion is for not merging. Pl remove the merger tag so that article can be posted for DYK before due date.--Nvvchar. 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

This is again a poor quality source. You really should not be using devotional books as sources. You've been alerted to this before in the above thread when I asked you to go slow, but you're not listening, and you're making way too many edits for other editors to fix. —SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is also not reliable? I'll find another and get it confirmed from you first now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You really have to go slow, you're creating a lot of work for other editors now. First you went ahead and created a content fork in the form of Bharata Chakravartin, then you added similar content to Bharata (emperor) and Jadabharata. Please stop treating these articles as sandboxes. With this, you're causing a lot of other editors to scratch their head and figure out what needs to be done. I know you're operating out of good faith, but I suggest you focus on an area that is more related to your expertise, and get an understanding of Misplaced Pages policies before delving into these spaces. —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ohk -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But please give me bharata chakravarti in my special page. I have spent hours developing that page. Few other editors have also made significant contribution to that article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that your insistence on adding religious material as fact is highly problematic, such as insisting that the Indian epics are all verifiable historical fact and adding "Ikshvaku dynasty" as a cat for like every Indian historical figure you can find, adding specific dates for the jinas half a million years ago and putting them on those wiki date range pages, and other problematic issues such as adding cite after cite after cite for the Nanda dynasty being Jain and each and every one not reliable, or, in the most recent case, doesn't claim they were Jain despite your apparent good citing. You've added epic tons of material and now it's evident it all needs to be evaluated for verity, reliability, factualness, and truth. Ogress _smash! 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not added anything to jadabharata. Also not any new content to bharata (emperor) except infobox sons. I did most of my editing in Bharata Chakravarti as earlier, I was not aware that both personalities were some. When through talks, discussions and research it seemed they both are same I added merge tags. I will slow down now but please restore bharata chakravarti. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I now understand what you mean Ogress. History and mythology are separate on Misplaced Pages. I did not add Ikshvaku to any new article. I just shifted the content of a sub cat (Ikshvaku clan ramayana) to its main cat. The Parshva thing you are talking about regarding historical dates, I have not reverted your revert. You can check on 870s BC page. Nanda refs were also given by Kautilya3. I am not able to get this reliable concept due it being highly subjective in nature and trying my best to find WP level sources. I have done 80-90% edits on Jainism related pages only, that to mostly stubs. I won't do any substantial edit without discussing it on talk page, but please give Bharata Chakravarti page back. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I don't know what you want me to restore, but I have not deleted any article related to your editing. I'm not involved in the specific content either and I have no opinion on that, but I'm focusing more on your editing behavior which is to randomly add these poor quality sources and a word or two here and there. As I said before, I understand that you're operating out of good faith and have an interest in these topics, but you'll need to follow policies and these edits are definitely problematic. e.g. This edit is problematic for a variety of reasons: you're conflating history and mythology, you've copied over from another article without attributing, you haven't even checked if the content your adding is verifiable material etc. And this is just one example, and it is a drain on the time of other editors. I strongly suggest that you stop editing in this area for a while, focus on editing in some areas where you have expertise, learn our policies, find out about encyclopaedia writing and then handle these sort of subjects. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, please slow down

Pankaj, as you ere advised above, can you please slow down, because your activities are getting disruptive. Exampl of some issues:

1. This is not a reliable source.
2. This is at best a borderline source, and should not be cited widely, and replaced with more scholarly works instead
3. Surya should not have a filmography (we can talk about depiction of Surya in literature, film, thaeter, but that should be based on scholarly secondary soources and not as a list of trivia)
4. Surya may be the son of Bharata in some legends, but afaik that is not the common mythology, and should not be presented w/o context
5. Ditto for Chandra and Bahubali
6. You shouldn't be mixing up mythology and history as you did here (I am assuming for the moment that Andhra Ikshvaku are historically attested)

I would have explained the above points and other issues with your editing in greater detail, except that your fast pace editing doesn't allow others to respond adequately. Please read up on WP:RS, WP:NPOV (and especially WP:RPOV) before continuing at a much slower and deliberate pace. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just saw Spaceman and Ogress' message in the section above. I second what they said. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on filmography thing? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly filmography is not the correct word for referring to films and television programs in which Surya has been depicted. But more importantly, as I said in the parenthetical note, wikipedia articles can talk about how Surya has been portrayed in literature, film, theater, art, dance etc but that should be based on scholarly secondary sources. So find some sources that discuss such depictions and analyze, say, the iconography, artistic intent, reception etc. That is encyclopedic. Just a list of modern TV series in which a single actor played Surya in a relatively minor role, is mere trivia, bordering on promotionalism (even though that may not be your intent). Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority control

Why are you removing those templates? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Over the past few days many editors have tried to reason with you and I have also asked you as one not involved in the specific content issues. You said you'll stop this, but you don't seem to show any intent to listen to feedback. This behavior is now crossing into the realm of being disruptive. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)