User talk:Vedant Katyayan

Need help

I need urgent help with figuring out which sources are reliable and which sources are not as per Wikipedia policy. Can any experienced editor guide me? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. If you have questions about a specific source, you can ask at WP:RSN. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727 Thanks, Appreciated. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! This is Arfa and I am changing my bio created by you on this page. Please do not reverse changes as it includes my updated profile. 2603:3024:184E:2A00:11B8:7230:30EC:FF85 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:3024:184E:2A00:11B8:7230:30EC:FF85 Oh really? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notable people in Rajpurohit wikipedia page.

Do not remove notable people information from page. Chinmay0777 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , @Chinmay0777

I noticed you reverted my edit on Rajpurohit where i removed POV push content backed by unauthentic and self published sources while some content simply wasn't mentioned in any source but was clear POV push. Do you realise that Individual portraits are not considered a good idea for Caste articles? Wikipedia is open to all but POV push is something which isn't encouraged and may cause you losing your editing priveleges. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedant Katyayan With all sincerity I would like to say that nobody gave you the right to remove or hide the history of our ancestors. The history is known by its pioneers and nobody is credible enough to hide it. With all humility I ask you to refrain from such objectionable acts and kindly revert it back to the previous versions. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:95C0:E33:7445:55EF (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:40D4:2006:9F21:95C0:E33:7445:55EF From your reply it seems you are not aware of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . There are many problems with that version you want to reinstate. Which exact source calls Rajpurohit as Martial class which was used by Britishers to classify communities serving in British Indian Army? That version also mentions Dronacharya without a source how was it relevant in Rajpurohit caste article. Please do not misuse revert function until you have authentic sources to cite for info available in your version. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have already been mentioned. Your lack of knowledge is not anyone else's problem. Nonetheless, Britishers are not the measure of authenticity of historical facts. Your statement shows your level of knowledge. Rajpurohits have been martial race since the beginning of varna system. we have the hierarchal list of all the ancestors even before Acharya Dronacharya as well as till date. So you at least don't try to teach history to us. Also, mind your own business and study better. Don't try to fiddle with our history as it is very sensitive issue. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:2D76:FAC4:923F:2F3D (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:40D4:2006:9F21:2D76:FAC4:923F:2F3D I checked the sources twice but didn't find any single mention of Rajpurohits being mentioned as Martial class. You need to understand that i ain't trying to distort any history but working purely on Wikipedia policy. All you can do is use Talk page of that article and explain with sources how the version you want to reinstate is constructive. Do not edit war as it may cause you losing editing privileges. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do not intimidate with the name of Wikipedia. This amazing platform is being perished because of people like you who have zero knowledge and vested interests.

Secondly, in modern era, the fundamental book for history of Rajpurohits is: RAJPUROHIT JATI KA ITIHAAS by DR PRAHLAD SINGH RAJPUROHIT ( Original version, 1978 is a gem and rarely available now but its revised version came 3 years back). Go and read it and educate yourself. Although you are not capable of studying history but just to mention FYI that apart from thousands of manuscripts, letters, epitaphs and evidences from all eras, there is also a book by KAVI KARNIDAAN JI CHARAN - SURAJ PRAKASH who wrote "live accounts" of battles and warriors. That's enough. Now stay away from this or else you might lose any kind of privileges. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:D5AE:919B:23CE:A8A1 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:40D4:2006:9F21:D5AE:919B:23CE:A8A1 You also need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources when you cite sources. Self published and non academic sources aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia. At this point you are targeting another editor for POV. You can talk to some experienced editor on this topic. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

self published and non academic ? are you out of your senses ? A couple of books by DR. PRAHLAD SINGH ji are in Oxford library. He was the pioneer historian. And KARNIDAAN ji wrote his account 300 years back. These legends are non academic ? There are thousands of British sources also. Jealousy is clearly visible, at least keep some sanity and talk some sense. I am absolutely warning you not to fiddle with our history and accounts of our ancestors. Stay out of it. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:CCED:F5D2:E889:A43C (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an idiot you are. Your jealousy and zeal to fall at such low level shows the level of your ancestors. Certainly an insecure and coward person you are. Hiding the brave and vibrant legacy of great warriors would benefit you in what way ? You can't change books, facts, scriptures, etc. neither do those legendary warriors care about wiki pages for validation. all you can do is hide it from unaware people and that too for some limited time. You represent your ancestors and surely they would be ashamed of you. All this shows how great Rajpurohits were so that people like you would need to fall so low. Anshu1799 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedant Katyayan Anshu1799 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to maintain civility @Anshu1799

Wikipedia is not a place for POV push and Non-WP:RS. It seems like you aren't aware of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU. You must know that self-published and primary sources WP:NOR aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia. The content i removed was either sourceless POV Push or was based on Non-RS or was irrelevant for that article. If you feel there are any additions to be made on that article and you have reliable sources to back it, I can help you with that. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need not teach me civic sense. Who are you to decide POV push and non reliable sources? Referred sources were of great historians and authors and not self published. Your existence is a POV then. I have already mentioned how authentic and reliable those sources are. and how dare you call Rajpurohit a caste of modern origin. Clearly shows your lack of knowledge or jealousy with the status of Rajpurohits. Grow up and be a man and learn to respect and accept facts.

If at all you have some dignity left, revert to my last edit on the page. I am settling for nothing less than that. If not, then there are other ways. If at all you are a man of dignity you must understand how devastating it is to see distorted and misinformed article about your caste and that being deliberately done. I have no personal grudges with you but if you don't correct it now then it won't be good. I won't leave it here. Anshu1799 (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshu1799 POV Push is something which isn't mentioned in any source or is a twisted form of something mentioned in source to serve your POV. I didn't removed any academic or RS. You made a shocking statement on Talk:Rajpurohit that Dronacharya, Kripacharya were Rajpurohits and Rajpurohit 'caste' or 'community' is ancient in origin. Can you provide me any reliable sources to back this claim? I can restore 'Notes' part if you provide me reliable academic source to back your claim. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned the sources. There is nothing twisted at all. The Author of the books has his own references which go back to medieval and ancient authors. How far will you trace it ? Primary validation was needed and the sources mentioned are authentic enough to validate. That's it. if at all this is not out of jealousy, Your statements clearly convey that you don't understand history. How can you yourself decide whether something is POV or reliable fact when you have not even read the sources and you are not learned enough on the matter ?? And you removed everything man- Historical origin, evolution, its martyrs and events in their lives, everything. What else is left ? JUST YOUR POV- that's what you kept. and this is unacceptable. Either you revert it to the authentic version or we elevate the matter. Anshu1799 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshu1799 As far as i can see, You haven't cited any reliable sources to back your claim. Learn how to cite sources properly with url links and page numbers, simply naming some source and leaving everything else to editors is not how it should be done. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am a researcher and I have got the books. I will cite all the pages and links but don't call them unreliable sources. They are more than reliable. I need some time, probably a day at least to find all the page numbers. You can open the editing locks and I will put all the references and page numbers that I find in appropriate manner. I believe then there should be no reason to hide the true information. Anshu1799 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshu1799 Unprotection of article is something i am not able to do and it will not be unprotected in near time. All you can do is contact some more experienced editors than me or administrators and explain your issue while citing your sources properly. Most probably they will say the same thing i'm saying. You need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research too. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To revert to the previous version which has been there for a long time is definitely in your hands, that too just because you have more than 500 edits. Just because you don't have the exact page numbers mentioned or maybe the formatting issue, you can't manipulate history like that. A newcomer would definitely be misguided with the distorted version that you have selectively kept. I have seen many pages on WP, this issue is not significant enough to completely destroy some group's identity or existence.

Since you were the one who started fiddling with this, you have a moral obligation to revert back to the authentic version. I can just assure as of now that whatever it will take, either I myself or some other experienced editor, page numbers would be inserted, as and when i am allowed to. But for now, you must revert, otherwise this page acts as a false information and vandalism which is a direct violation of identity. Anshu1799 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert my constructive edits to the Killing of John O'Keefe page.

I have been working on said page since July and got a message from Wiki volunteer about removing excessive detail. In accordance of the message, I have been working on shortening the content and you removed it saying it's "vandalism". It's not vandalism when it's constructive edits, especially when it's on my own content I previously contributed. I have been on Wikipedia for 10+ years and I know what I am doing. With all due respect, do not revert constructive edits and then go to their talk page accusing people of vandalism. Mikiko609 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikiko609 You removed citations without adequately explaining the reason. You must realise that while making such bold edits, you have to explain why that edit will be constructive just like in your recent revision. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will next time thx Mikiko609 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bhumihar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian My apologies, i was absolutely unaware of any such rule of WP:RAJ. Can i get back to you after i find reliable sources to refute it and expect a help from you? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of caste editing

Vedant Katyayan, you need to be much more careful than you are in editing those articles. First stop: please read Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, which explains that your style of editing--which includes edit warring and the use of unacceptable sources--is not OK. Second stop, and I can't really tell if you took this or not, is to look at WP:RAJ, which offers advice on those sources; if this edit means you're looking at it, that's good. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Apologies as i wasn't aware of such rule and Thanks. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, which is why I put it here. Longterm editors like me and User:Ekdalian know all too well how problematic the area has been, and I think Ekdalian will agree that many of the problems can be prevented by being very careful in sourcing. You cited some caste book from 1896 I believe; many of those older books present facts and theories that just aren't accepted anymore, and much of that material relies on antiquated writing by colonial-era hobbyists. Google Books give quick and easy access to those sources because they're all out of copyright, and that, I believe, really muddies the waters of a book search. I've made that mistake too: you think "ah OK, I got this from a book", and then you find out that the book you cited is, well, not factual, not reliable, not acceptable, and often suffers from old racism, caste enmity, and class discrimination. User:Sitush has been instrumental in writing up a consensus among editors pertaining to those sources. Anyway, thanks for the note: it's a learning journey for all of us. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Thanks for explaining this well. Will consider these points in future while editing. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Thanks Drmies for the detailed explanation. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian Can we just remove that Paragraph as the cited source book by Ashwani Kumar does not looks reliable for studying caste as Ashwani Kumar isn't an ethnologist or historian but a biologist? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this on the article talk page along with a brief bio of the author, so that all concerned editors are on the same page; it would be easier to achieve consensus and validate the author's credentials! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Anantam tripathi per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anantam tripathi. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rajpurohit page

hey vedant, many random people tried to manipulate the Rajpurohit wikipedia page. Could you revert it back to edit done by you just after me. That's was correct. I hope you will do it. Thanks Chinmay0777 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]