User talk:Chanchaldm

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: They should not be given alerts for those areas.

We need more than one source to verify this subject.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam, I'm Dr.Pinsky. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tilli, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provided Chanchaldm (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tilli. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You made an original research in these edits. The source [1] clearly mentions them to be OBC not general. This one mentions 'Teli' and yet again talks about OBC reservations. Correct it as per source kindly. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Australo-Melanesian‎ does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. In the case of your edit at Australo-Melanesian this is especially important, since I don't know why you removed the link if you don't explain it. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I removed the wikilink as there's no wikipedia article on that topic. I did this some other pages too. Also, If there's an article, but no wikilink given , I add the wikilink there. I forgot to give edit summary here. Sorry for that.Chanchaldm (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found a very good solution. Thank you and happy editing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he belongs in Category:Tibetan Buddhist yogis he is clearly in Category:10th-century Tibetan people. Where he started life is not as significant as where he did what made him notable.Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This site looks like not reliable at all. Please do not use this site. Chaipau (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this site explicitly mentioned about the community, I added it. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Hutton source present in Bengal Kayastha page is originally published in 1946 and that makes it fall under WP:RAJ the author is also a british adminstrator.please remove it.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian removing sourced content from Vaidya and Brahmin page.you are invited to give your opinion there. Nobita456 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nobita456 I have somehow missed your message. However I have checked that Vaidya and trija thing. It is well sourced- But is it relevant to Bengali Baidya caste article? There may be some issues, but IMO baidya article is the best among all bengali caste articles. This article can be seen as a benchmark to develop other caste articles.Chanchaldm (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchaldm please see the talk page of bengali kayatsha article(mediaeval varna section).and give your view,do we need to add the mediaeval varna of them or not. Nobita456 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchaldm we are waiting for your clear opinion at the Bengali Kayatsha talk page. please give your decision either you want that seperate Mediaeval Varna section or not, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nobita, I was not active. Generally I do not have any objection to any contribution that can give relevant information to readers.Chanchaldm (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chanchaldm. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bishnucharan Biswas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Chanchaldm You are most welcome to evaluate the Draft for the origin of Bengali Kayastha. I want to add some more information after the discussion. Thanks ;Satnam2408 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will take a look.Chanchaldm (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Suvarna Banik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been in many edit wars. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chanchaldm. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bishnucharan Biswas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in page 169 Adhikary 2009, Jalia Kaibarta took the identity of Mahishya between 1901 to 1921 in Bengal. Do look into the source Homogenie (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. Sorry, I haven't found anything like, what you wrote in the article or here, in the book. It's quite different thing.Chanchaldm (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chanchaldm, Sorry to disturb you. This is to inform you that a discussion regarding the Karana-Kayastha connection is going on in WP:DRN. You are requested to express your concerns here in your section. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Please refrain from your disruptive undo-ing as you apparently did in the article Indian Rebellion of 1857. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing apparently relevant and sourced details without explanation is WP:DE. Please follow the editing conventions first and give edit summary, instead of leaving inappropriate message on talk page. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the proper details why I made edits to the article, and you seem to disagree with it. Punctuation issues are ought to be corrected. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing relevant minor details about "Muslim Rajputs" again and again without giving any explanation. I have no objection to correction of "Punctuation issues", if done properly. Do not intentionally post misleading message on my talk page again. You've been warned. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it necessary to add () when you can directly go to the link? Don't try to vandalize the page. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that you don't need to add () as the link of Ranghars says they are a Muslim Rajput community. I'm not trying to remove any information, i'm just correcting your mistake. And if you don't like that, you cannot vandalize the page based on what you believe. Look up the ethics of Professional for help. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is removing anything, everyone has the ability to click the link of Ranghars and see what the first sentence says. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR RESPONSE: "I have no objection to correction of "Punctuation issues"". Ok, so going by that logic we should describe every word's definition in the article with ()? And you are acting as if the Ranghars is the only community of Muslim Rajputs. Therefore, you are wrong in all ways as you were the one who started the editing war. If someone wants to know what Ranghars are, they can simply click the link. And the definition of Ranghar is not "Muslim Rajputs", though it is only a community of Muslim Rajputs.

Ranghar are a community of Muslim Rajputs in the Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh; and in Sindh (Muhajirs) and Punjab in Pakistan.

You don't need to add () as the link to Ranghars clearly describe what they are. You are violating the professional ethics of Wikipedia. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk)

To Slatersteven (talk)

May you please explain to this user that there is no need to add the definition of the word when there already is a Wiki article on the word? Also, the definition is not specific. This user keeps accusing me of trying to remove information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs) 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please do not remove any small pieces of information as you apparently did to the article Jallianwala Bagh massacre. You have warned me not to remove small, minor details, and here you are doing that yourself. Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. You removed the information about the Rowlatt Acts. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had just undone explained edit and gave edit summary. Please be cautious before you write on talk. Reminder: Wikipedia isn't a space for personal rivalry. Thank you. Chanchaldm (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is Wikipedia a place for you to make threats like "Please be cautious before you write on talk". Everyone has a right to use the talk page if they feel a user has made a mistake. Also, personal rivalry was started by you, not me as you came up to me first. You removed the term Rowlatt Acts, and did some other moves of your own. My objection was when you removed Rowlatt Acts. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,User:GujaratiHistoryinDNA, I have no rivalry with you, I am your fellow editor. But We have some policies here. Unlike you I was never blocked. You're welcome to post message here, but please see this WP:CIVIL, WP:HA. Thanks !Chanchaldm (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling me about policies regarding civilness, yet you launch harassment, saying "Unlike you I was never blocked". Wow. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources here are WP:RS. Stop restoring this edit. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a book published by Firma KLM isn't reliable?Chanchaldm (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source with no indication of any credibility. Read about WP:HISTRS.

We should not use these dubious source. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay or Firma KLM is a WP:RS.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are lots of other scholarly sources discussing this issue, for example - 1, 2, 3.

Please stop unnecessary edit warring. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: Can you take a look at this glaring incompetence? This user is unnecessarily wasting time and edit warring by falsifying an unreliable source as reliable. Capitals00 (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00 , I understand what you're trying to push here. It may be hard for you, but you should try to be civil, at least on Wikipedia !Chanchaldm (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP: HISTRS.

Can you verify how the source is supporting your information?

Also, can you find additional reliable sources for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims?

The disputed claim is "He also founded the Japanese branch of the Hindu Mahasabha, becoming its first president". Capitals00 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Mukherjee is a historian and biographer specialising in history of freedom movement. The cited book is among the most well known books (cited by many other scholars) on the subject. I have already presented three other scholarly sources. Have you checked? Nothing exceptional about it; I haven't got any contrasting views. Thanks !Chanchaldm (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See what is WP:V. You are supposed to provide quotations from the sources that how they support the disputed claim. Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you convinced that the source is reliable?Chanchaldm (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. But before I dispute it's reliability it is necessary to know if the source even supports the information. Capitals00 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beside my multiple inputs in edit summaries and here in this thread, a very experienced editor and admin of our community gave his remark. Going round in circle is just wastage of time.Chanchaldm (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given you have refused to verify the source, it is already clear that you misrepresented sources and misused them when you never read the sources yourself.

I have left a templated warning for your misrepresentation of sources. Dont repeat this again. Capitals00 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw your revert here and your source is making a mere passing mention of "Hindu Mahasabha". This source makes a number laughable claims such as "In any case , the role of the revolutionaries in the achievement of India's Independence is still today much too minimised , the official apologists claiming that the crown of martyrdom to the cause of Freedom rightfully belongs to the Congress." How can it pass WP:RS? Capitals00 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other RSs of which I already presented three. Please check p67, [p95. Rash Behari Bose and Savarkar/Hindu Mahasabha connection has been covered in mainstream scholarships.Chanchaldm (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you are promoting misinformation.

This is written by George Ohsawa (a macrobiotic diet advocate) who fails WP:RS and this source does not support your information. Capitals00 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are over and above Uma Mukherjee's work. p91-94 also discusses Bose-Savarkar connection and approval of Japan Branch in 1938. Do you have any source that contradicts these views? We may add those views too. And please give page no/s when giving quotation from a source. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the source here. Just citing page number is not enough.

We have already agreed that Mukherjee is unreliable for making laughable claims and the author's credentials are still unknown.

Why would reliable sources discuss this misinformation? Capitals00 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prove or explain what are "laughable claims" or "misinformation" "exceptional claims" by giving quotations(with page nos unlike you did previously) from reliable sources. Your personal opinions shall not be granted unless they are verifiable, WP:V.

Neither me nor Doug Weller agreed with your claimed unreliability of the cited source. please do not misrepresent others. You're welcome to approach appropriate platform to challenge the reliability of the source. Thanks !Chanchaldm (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you were falsifying the source that's why you don't have quotation to confirm the misinformation you are promoting.

If you have even a cent worth understanding of Indian history then you would know the laughable claims I have already quoted just above.

You are promoting this misinformation for a year on this page and trying to falsify sources.

You can see WP:RSN, I have started a thread there. Capitals00 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]