User talk:Rawn3012: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:55, 23 November 2024

January 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 21:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mokal Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sisodia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please fact check your work or stop uploading maps

Until such time as you are able and willing to engage in basic fact checking, please cease and desist from uploading inaccurate maps to Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. As an example, your Vijayanagara map has the location of the city of Vijayanagara off by hundreds of miles (c.f. the map at Hampi, or just open Google Maps). Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion Why being so rude? If you have some problems just discuss it on talk page and it will be corrected. Rawn3012 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were repeatedly warned in the edit history of the page to not include this map (with edit summaries considerably ruder than mine, mind you) and yet you repeatedly and flippantly disregarded their notes anyways. This suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Do not reintroduce the map with the excuse that you are "working on it"; at least until such time as it is fixed, it should not be included. Reverting my reversion in favor of a map you know to be false, as you just did, also suggests you are clearly WP:NOTHERE. And not every silly blatantly false, clearly disproved edit requires a thread on that article's talk page. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will correct the map with city's location and also I have added the map with consensus of other editors as well. Blindly accusing me of things will not get you anywhere

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will correct the map with city's location

There are numerous other issues with this map, including multiple other cities that are misplaced; be sure to correct them as well before attempting to add the map back to the page.

also I have added the map with consensus of other editors as well

Could you provide a link to any such discussion? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Brusquedandelion please list all the changes that want in the map so it can be done in once. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Brusquedandelion As I was busy with my exams I had asked another user to correct the errors stated by you and it had been corrected. Hence I am re-adding the map.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also apologies for mistakes committed Rawn3012 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming off as confrontational as I did initially; I've seen a lot of cases of people making truly terrible maps/flags with minimal effort but it seems your efforts are well-intentioned. Please consider my advice below, and I hope you will accept my apology. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawn3012, would it be alright if you could remove the legend and heading? They are causing unnecessary clutter and not required here. PadFoot (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion Now, what is wrong in the map? can you explain me? Please do reply this time.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vijayanagara is not on the correct side of the Tungabhadra in the map, though admittedly this is also an issue with the old map, however it doesn't have the second issue, which is...

Please don't include modern international borders into these maps of of pre-British South Asia it can at all be avoided, even if you use dotted lines and no matter how subtle those borders are or how diplomatic you attempt to be; you are opening a whole can of worms with India/Pakistan/China border disputes.
But respectfully, you're also missing the broader point, which is that all of these elementary errors point to a fundamental issue with your map-making process that throws everything else into question. So someone points out one error, you preemptively remove all the names and locations of the other cities so as to avoid even the possibility of an error with regards to them; someone points out another error, you fix it, and so on; we can go back and forth like this until we reach a map not obviously incorrect to either party, but maybe there's an issue with your actual map making process in the first place and that's where you should start, rather than making someone else play whack-a-mole with you? All of these errors so far, including several I didn't even mention (e.g. the fact that in the last map, before you removed all the cities, there were so many misplaced cities that I think they actually outnumbered cities in the right place), were spotted by me in perhaps 15 minutes. I don't know what else might be wrong that would require more diligent analysis, but maybe you, as the map maker, should be doing that work, rather than demanding someone else do it? And maybe instead of making a patently inaccurate map and then having someone else whack-a-mole it, you should investigate why there are so many moles in the first place? For starters, consider using an actual cartographic tool rather than (presumably using) MS Paint, so that you can put in coordinates and know without a shadow of a doubt that a locale is in the right place, rather than eyeballing it. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is chock full of such haphazard maps (never mind flags, which are even worse) and unfortunately Wikipedia is so widely used and so highly prioritized in search engine results these days that even the mere act of uploading such a map to the Commons propagates misinformation popular understanding of history; I have even seen such errors work their way into ostensibly academic works. Therefore the would-be map creator on Wikipedia really needs to take great care not to invent, however unintentionally, such misinformation.

The term of art here is "GIS" and the Google-fu you are looking for lies in the phrase "GIS map making program". These links may also be of service: [1] [2] [3] [4]

I hope this helps. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Gagron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Merta and Rathore.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict (1326 to 1518) has been accepted

Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict (1326 to 1518), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ratnahastin (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-reverts

Please take care when reverting; with this revert diff you also reverted my edits of the caption and the note of the Network-model map. Your previous mass-revert diff also removed some gnomish edits. Take this as a soft warning. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Joshua Jonathan Apologies for that Rawn3012 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc and other

The argument you just used about Romila and other historians being used a source for hole map , I was saying that argument since day 1 of this discussion, no one seemed to understand.

If your going to start a RFC, then do it, people have been clearly POV pushing very hard.

They have been ignoring our hundreds of sources which I mentioned when I started this topic discussion, instead prioritising their own sources bigger than us.

They think that just because they are "experienced editors" they can do anything and devalue our opinion , they have been putting our sources as unreliable.

@Rawn3012 JingJongPascal (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be doing a RFC? @Rawn3012 JingJongPascal (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by Monday most probably. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawn3012 I would suggest you to go for Status quo, like it was agreed before, we have a lot of things to improve in the article except for endlessly arguing regarding maps, As far as I have seen these discussions, they are never ending reaching no conclusion or consensus, it is a waste of time to go for an RFC, better is to go for Status quo, let both of the maps remain in the article as they were beforeJingJongPascal (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal Agree for now the max extent map remains must be goal. Edasf «Talk» 16:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahmani Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]