User talk:More random musing

Hi, I removed the following text that you added... "According to Niccolao Manucci Rajaram and his men dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them. ^[1]"

I checked this book but I was unable to locate any such incident on the page number you mentioned. Please edit the text again if I have missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsbuttar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, More random musing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

WP:No original research asks that we "take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

At Akbar the Great you reintroduced information about the Nazis, but the source (Crumpacker) does not in any way relate the Nazis to Akbar, so I ask that you, in accordance with the rules, "not go beyond what is expressed in the sources" because "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article."

I hope that you understand this and that this will suffice to resolve the dispute. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up this issue at the No original research noticeboard Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Akbar_the_Great. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Nazis is Original research. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand the comparison you were trying to make but since you "pointed out the similarity of treatment of Hindoos and Jews" without any source making this comparison, it violates the original research rules, regardless of how reasonable such a comparison may seem to the editor. I might venture to disavow such a comparison because Muslim societies would generally have different reason for dress codes than the Nazis (issues of ritual purity, &c), but my say is of little importance as well unless a source makes the same claim. In the end, we have to keep original comparisons out of the articles, and stick to those claims directly made by the sources themselves. I hope you understand my argument here. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basic level, we cannot include anything unless the source directly relates it the article's topic. That's just the rule against no original research; there is no good way around it. Personally, I think that with complex issues like dress code phenomena across many different times, places, and contexts, mere free encyclopedia editors are not qualified to make connections that are best left for real academics. Sometimes these distinctions were made in Muslim societies to help Muslim maintain ritual purity since they generally held non-believers in contempt (since Islam was thought of as much more enlightened and correct), but the Nazi treatment of Jews was entirely geared towards persecution; as you might say, it was for "easy targeting." The "similarity" between the two practices may well be only superficial. But again, I'm not claiming expertise, so I offer this reasoning hoping that it might be helpful. Even if my reasoning about the issue itself is incorrect, we are still faced with the No Original Research rule, which does not support inclusion of the Nazi item, regardless of whether or not the comparison may seem correct to us. I hope that this makes some sense to you. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Akbar the great

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akbar the Great. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Deepak D'Souza 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident report

Hello, More random musing. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princeville, Hawaii

Please don't place advertising on articles, as you did at Princeville, Hawaii; as you can see at this Wikipedia policy page, advertising isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

This edit dragging Nazi generals into an article about a Mogul king is inappropriate. Akbar was simply following a general Muslim custom, not marking out populations for extermination.

Few points.

Other then Akbar no other Mughal king is known to have indulged in this practice even in puritanical Aurangzeb's realm such discriminatry patches wer not stuck on people of Hindu race. So it was not a general Muslim/Mughal custom.
In Akbar's realm, his general Husain Tukriya had a passion to convert Hindus to Islam. Tukriya epithet he got because he had hindus wear discriminatory patches. If people resisted conversion they were usually killed. So yes there were extermnations as well as lots of forced conversions.

You need to quit engaging in this sort of novel comparison. You are conflating material from 20th century totalitarianism with traditional Muslim practices. A number of other editors have contested this type of editing by you. You need to listen to them. Fred Talk 18:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a novel comparison but I am willing to be convinced though it was not a tradtional muslim/mughal practice. More random musing (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge#Muslim_countries The source given is ^ Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam, Princeton University Press, Jun 1, 1987, pp. 25-26. Fred Talk 17:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rajasthani Granthgar

A tag has been placed on Rajasthani Granthgar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Akbar the Great

Your edits have been reverted, since they had the effect of removing referenced material and reintroducing original research into the article, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. For clarity, I have restored an {{underconstruction}} tag, which was removed earlier, to the top of the page, to indicate that the article is being worked on, and that there might be a few minor inconsistencies for sometime while the structure is sorted out. I will be working on this issue over the next few days, and I think that once the sections are properly organised, the article should become more clear. Also, while there is no bar for large scale changes, I have started a thread on the talk page, in the interest of maintaining consensus. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make deep reverts, as it destroys all the constructive work in between. I will restore the page to the revision before your revert, and please make only those changes which are contrary to the consensus that is being developed (i.e. removal of quotes etc.). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. There are clear improvements to the article that you are repeatedly reverting, which is not a good idea. I understand that you disagree about the removal of the quotes etc - that discussion can continue on the talk page, and whether the quotes are included or excluded while the discussion is underway is quite immaterial. However, preventing uncontroversial improvements from being made, and blindly reverting multiple editors' efforts, just because you disagree with some of the edits is quite disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthani Granthgar

I did not delete this article. See [1]. WWGB (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, More random musing. You have new messages at Talk:Akbar the Great.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akbar the Great. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Also see my message on the talk page, and don't repeat the blind reverts. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to being called disruptive when all I have requested SBC to develop a consensus and not confuse the article. I hope you would not threaten me again. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Copied from my talk page, to keep discussion consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I gave you the 3RR warning, since you were on the verge of violating the rule, having already made 3 reverts ([2], [3] and [4]) in the last 24 hours, and even more previously. Not intended as a threat, but as a courtesy to make sure you are aware of the related wikipedia policies. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing". It would have been more fair if you had told SBC and D'Souza the same thing. But thanks for clarifying. More random musing (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very one sided in your analysis and repeatedly calling me disruptive is borderline threatening because you are an administrator and seem to be a friend of SBC. It would help if you were to follow the discussion on the talk page and be impartial to your friends and people you do not know. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken any sides in the content discussion (which is best resolved by contributing editors themselves), and have only suggested (1) other knowledgeable editors be invited to participate in the discussion (which was done), and (2) clarified the application of WP:PSTS versus WP:Primary. That aside, I have explained to you why your repeated blind reverts are disruptive. Both my conversations with SBC and you are open for anyone to read and judge for themselves. If you still feel that I am being biased towards my supposed "wiki-friends", I can only recommend that you get a second opinion from any experienced editor/admin you trust. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are whole bunch of edits that redtiger and others have made where they have, without any discussion, removed referenced material. Have you warned them for being disruptive or are just singling me out? Please request SBC to edit sections on which we have built consensus. Unilateral disruptive warnings are not in the spirit of wikipedia. More random musing (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fair?

"I haven't taken any sides in the content discussion ": Have you warned any other editor when they have removed referenced material without developing any consensus on the talk page? You are just singling me out for warnings. This is harrassment. Please be fair and consistent. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets step back for a moment from this spiraling accusations of bias, cabalism, harrassment etc, and talk this over calmly.

Look, I understand that you are a relatively new editor (especially compared to old hands like Redtigerxyz, Nemonoman etc) and made some perfectly understandable and good faith errors with regards to wiipedia policies on original sources, primary sources, and possibly due weight. That is not a problem and I have not once faulted you for that, since some of these policies run counter to academic writing that many editors are familiar with. What I did warn you about was your edit-warring and repeated reversions on the page, in which you undid non-controversial edits by multiple editors. You came on the verge of violating 3RR restriction yesterday, and unfortunately you have continued in the same vein today. I am particularly disappointed that you did not even respond to my request below to self-revert your latest reversion.

As for the edits Redtiger made to the page. Most of them were completely straightforward and non-controversial and the logic was explained in his edit-summaries. He did remove some quotes citing WP:UNDUE, which I understand you disagree with and it's fair to discuss the issue on the talk page. Note though that, unlike you, Redtigerxyz did not edit war and there is absolutely no reason to warn him.

You'll note that even SBC, who has made multiple reverts over the past few days, stopped editing the article while discussion was continuing and resumed it only after all the subsequent opinions on the talk page (Redtigerxyz, Nemonoman) were supportive of his general position. Even then, he stopped at a single revert and asked me to intervene as an admin, instead of edit warring.

Now I have given the above detailed explanation not to claim that you-are-wrong and they-are-all-right, but to explain why you were warned while others weren't. I would highly recommend that you stop treating this as a battleground, and instead assume good faith of other editors and admins. I again request you to undo your latest reversion, and discuss the issues on the talk page instead. If there is consensus for inclusions of the quotes etc, they can always be re-inserted. And, if you have questions about related policies and practice feel free to discuss it with me or any other editor you trust. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hang on

Agreed. But no mass reverts please. Restore content piecemeal, if it has to be restored. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you self-revert your this edit, which (as I stated above) undid non-controversial changes made by multiple editors ? It might have been understandable if added back the particular information whose removal you considered unjustified, but such repeated blind reverts are highly disruptive. You have already made 6-7 such reversions in the past few days, and unless you discontinue, you may be blocked for edit-warring. I am hopeful that the article can be improved and edited in a more collaborative spirit, without any need for admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar the Great

For every edit, one need not discuss on the talk. One can use WP:BOLD and edit, if there is a dispute, it can be discussed. I had only removed WP:UNDUE quotes which had undue details and the text had the basic idea in it, which was not removed. Removal of quotes was backed by "Blockquote" discussion by NotedGrant Talk 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC). => WP:CONSENSUS,--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akbar the Great. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening edit war incident report

Be aware that I am opening an incident report concerning your recent activities. I'll provide a link to the report when it is complete. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the incident report here

Edit warring at Akbar the Great

Hello Random. As you've been told above, you've been reported at the 3RR noticeboard. You do behave like an edit warrior, and on top of that, you've actually violated WP:3RR by making four reverts in 24 hours. Please join the discussion at the noticeboard and explain what you will do to find agreement with others and be more diplomatic in the future. Any party that makes blanket reverts (as you do) tends to place themselves in the wrong. If an admin comes to the 3RR board and closes this issue before you have time to comment there, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the report (here) as stale given that further edit-warring has not occurred, but should warn that any further editing like this is likely to attract a block. Thanks, Black Kite 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my view that you technically went over 3RR. This is moot, since no action was taken. But I've replied at more length on User talk:EdJohnston#Hello. Your blanket reverts can't be seen as a good-faith effort to arrive at a compromise version of the article. (Blanket reverts prevent onlookers from getting any kind of a notion of the disputed points, since the diffs are totally confusing). EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello More random musing! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Harbans Mukhia - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, More random musing. You have new messages at Talk:Akbar.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Niccolao Manucci, Storia Mogor, Published by John Murray in 1907, 319th page

[1] Niccolao Manucci, Storia Mogor, Published by John Murray in 1907, 319th page

[1]