User talk:Bhojpal1234

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpal1234, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bhojpal1234! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion based edit on Kushwaha

I think you haven't read properly before removing Kachhawaha from the article? It was not written that that one is similar to Kushwaha caste. It meant that all the four caste lay similar claims of being a descendent of Kusha. It was sourced from peasant and monk in British India. Please refrain from opinion based edits. The sentence you removed highlights [only] the claim of both these agricultural castes and the rajput clan because, the claim of none of these holds water as Kachhawas rajput were himself descendents of tribals who were tortoise killer. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to re read the paragraph and the sentence, it talks about the sub-castes of Kushwaha community, Kachwahas were never thr sub caste of Kushwaha Backward community. I have seen you have tried to related them on Kachwaha page as well. As far as their origin is considered please keep the personal commentary to yourself, thank you. Bhojpal1234 (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had clearly read the talk page of Kachhawa you would have known that I was not relating the both but supporting another user who was separating both. And yes I have read there is no Similarity between both as the Kachhawa were actually known throughout the history as subordinate of Mughals while the peasant caste had not gained notability until british rule came.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it again, I have already explained that on your talk page that Kachwaha clan history is more than 1200 yrs old, and mughal subordination was not even for 200 yrs, stop giving your skewed notions about a community. Also, in case you believe both are different, I would expect that you won't add the Kachwaha clan name on Kushwaha page again, as both have clearly no relation.

January 2021

Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here [1], the Rajput article has numerous high quality source that doubts your personal claim Heba Aisha (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not my personal claim, I have given historical references for it. Second,CV Vaidya is much acclaimed author and historians than those you are citing. Third, contemporary text of Al Masudi talks about Rajput Rule in Kandhar, at the same time Heuin Tsang, talks about Kshatriyas rule in Kandhar, hence Rajputs and Kshatriyas were synonymous to each other during those times. It also shows that rajput identity predated 10th century as claimed by a Tablot. Hence Tablot is not reliable. Bhojpal1234 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV - when good sources disagree, often the right answer is to include both perspectives. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure sir but But User:Heba Aisha and User:HinduKshtrana are deliberately trying to demean a particular community in India due to their personal prejudices. They are adding some random references many of which are passing references on every clan page of Rajput community. They are picking up particular instances against Rajputs and putting the info in all the rajput pages, doesn't matter if it is related to the article or not. You can check their contributions, most of them are against Rajputs. How are we going to resolve this? Bhojpal1234 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HinduKshatrana Bhojpal1234 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhojpal1234. I've removed your latest post on Heba Aisha's talk page. If you feel that something needs to be changed on Wikipedia, it is best to come armed with specific suggestions and reliable sources. If you have a dispute with another editor, use one of the many dispute resolution strategies. But you must not comment on the motives of other editors because that violates an important policy here (WP:NPA). Bottom line: focus on content issues, bring reliable sources, and WP:NPA. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regentspark, I have all the reasons ton doubt his/her motives as she is deliberately targeting a single community, plz read her comments on my talk page about Kachwaha rajputs, she called the whole community as servants of mughals, do you want me to believe she doesnt have any vendetta against rajputs? RegentsPark

I rarely edits Rajput related pages and most of my time goes in creating new article on social history of Bihar or politics. Infact, in the latest row over Kachhawas also I have just supported your stand that they are different and it was not me who added Kachhawas to Kushwaha, check properly the layout of the article was set by Sitush who added it and my contribution was only in politics section. In the same way I am not the one who usually edits the pages you are pointing towards. Thats why I contacted Ravensfire who is tracking these pages.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, Bhojpal1234, you need to discuss edits on the article talk page and work towards consensus there. See WP:BRD - you have boldly made changes, but have been reverted, please start discussions on the talk page, not by continually editng on the article, and work towards consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for consensus but if someone is adamant to project only his/her point of view in an article, on the basis of the number of edits he/she has got, no matter what how flawed the judgement is, how am I able to make a consensus? References given by me was taken from esteemed historians like CV Vaidya, RC Majumdar, who are considered stalwarts in Indian history, they are blatantly removed just because it doesn't go with someone's point of view, wikipedia should be a neutral article and shouldn't act as a mouth piece of one ideology. Bhojpal1234 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Kushwaha, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. utcursch | talk 02:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Here[2] Heba Aisha (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at List of Rajput dynasties and states, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You've been notified and warned about this before. "You can't gang up to particularly target one community, while glorifying yours, which is pretty relevant from your edits." is NOT acceptable. Do not focus on the editor like you are doing. Any further personal attacks of this nature will be reported. I've asked nicely. I've been pretty direct. You haven't changed so further personal attacks will be escalated. This is a contentious topic and nonsense like this DOES NOT HELP. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you're wondering, I'm not from India, have no ancestors that I'm aware of from India (genealogy research has gone back 7 generations at this point). So yeah, your throw-away insult isn't very effective. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not said that you have been ganging up, I tagged you because you are most sensible of them all and as the concensus was built on your beheast, second, those who were referred, weren't even tagged, so maybe you think I am making personal attacks, I am just putting up points that also needs to be pondered upon.

Bhojpal1234 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice

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.

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.

Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I'm hoping you've realized that not everyone shares your perspective on some things. When discussing edits on Wikipedia, it's generally best to use the article talk page to discuss that article, not the user talk pages that have reverted or changed your edits. It's hard for other editors who've worked on those pages to see your comments on user talk pages that they don't follow. Keeping the discussions in one place makes it easier to follow for everyone AND helps editors in the future find those discussions. Also, please comment on the EDITS, not on the EDITOR. You've make more than a few comments directed towards other editors that are personal attacks. Comments like "biased comments" and "biased approach and systematic targeting" directed towards editors is not helpful. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, you have to work with editors you disagree with. This isn't anything new - see WP:DSTOPICS for the areas where significant disputes have happened. Please dial back on the rhetoric and realize that there different perspectives. You don't have to agree with them or support them, but you have to collaborate with them. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Revensfire, I really appreciate your advice, but I have already given you the reason of those comments in our last discussion. I am all for collaboration and collective achievements, unless some one is hell bent to stress their point of view on others. I have seen what has happened to the main rajput page, and how I precedence over contemporary sources and esteemed historians is given to random references by unknown authors, even those references are included which doesn't even include footnotes. People here are giving precedence to works of Tablot over world renowned Historians like Ojha & Cv Vaidya,stalwarts in their own field, I don't know how well you know these people, but I, being a research scholar in Indian history very well know these names, their works and the efforts they have put in. Just in case you have time, please go through main Rajput page and read the one sided narrative a group of people have written on that page. As far as talk page issue is concerned, thats a good advice I will follow that from next time. Thanks and regards.

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Please keep up the good work! ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic area alert

Alert was not substituted as required. Reissued below. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 26 February 2021 (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.

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.

Vengeance 01 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2021 (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.

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. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm leaving this alert on multiple other editors to make sure everyone is aware that editor behavior is closely watched on these articles. Vengeance 01 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ramprakash1000 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramprakash1000. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]