User talk:Ratnahastin

Emergency user slap button

Editors: Use this button if the user is malfunctioning. (direct link)
Unregistered users can report a malfunctioning user to Wikipedia talk:Village stocks.

Query and permission regarding editing Hindu Ghosi

Dear Ratnahastin,

I hope you are doing good I had a query regarding Hindu Ghosi page, I understand that many editors are having eyes on me and @Bbb3 even put a query on me on Sockpuppetry account investigation section here, [1] and that's not an issue I'm not a sockpuppet account but I just wanted to ask you a question can I kindly revert your latest edit on Hindu Ghosi[2] to an old edit by a sockpuppet account of Rao Devilal Pratap that was Mouthskipper, and here is the edit by the sockpuppet account[3] because I find this edit fine and the request I wanted to do was kindly do not put an SPI on me for this because I'll be only doing what would be right there.

Thanking you

Nlkyair012 06:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to do that even without asking me. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much respected Ratnahastin 🙏🏻 Nlkyair012 06:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edits to Kamaria Ahir Page & Request for Feedback

(Note:-I’m well aware there are guidelines discouraging overreliance on automated tools but this entire message is generated by AI as I didn't have time to compile the message but the whole idea is mine and not AI's so kindly forgive me for that part.)

I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to let you know that I’m preparing a revised version of the Kamaria Ahir page, one that I believe will address the concerns you raised in the past. My goal is to ensure the article complies with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and best practices around older colonial-era sources).

Here’s how I plan to proceed:

1. Sandbox Draft: I’ve created (or will create) a sandbox version where I’ve integrated both older (British Raj–era) sources in historical context and modern academic sources (like Lucia Michelutti, Dipankar Gupta, etc.) for present-day data. By presenting the older references as historical documents (rather than definitive statements about contemporary identity), I hope to adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines about colonial-era material.

2. Neutrality & Attribution: I’ve rephrased genealogical or self-ascriptive claims (like “Yaduvanshi descent”) to make it clear these are community traditions rather than verifiable facts. The final text should reflect a neutral perspective, with every statement tied to a specific citation.

3. Seeking Your Input: Because you previously removed or trimmed content and expressed concern about reliable sourcing, I’d really appreciate your feedback before I move the revised content out of my sandbox. I’m happy to incorporate any suggestions or corrections you have so that we can ensure the page remains consistent with Wikipedia policies.

And with all this here is the Sandbox draft Kamaria Ahir Sandbox Draft

If it's okay with you, I'd like to finalize the sandbox draft and then place it on the main article page. Please let me know if there are any suggestions or changes you’d recommend before I do so. I’d like to collaborate peacefully and ensure we create the best possible version of the article for everyone.

Thanks in advance, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Best regards,

- Nlkyair012 07:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are still using AI to write content(see WP:LLM!) and Raj era sources, most experienced users have disapproved your usage of Raj sources and AI. Please start listening to what everyone is saying (WP:IDHT approach never works.). - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some points are needing more clarity, as I feel there is a misunderstanding in my application of AI and pre Raj era sources. I completely appreciate Wikipedia’s caution regarding the use of generative AI WP:LLM. The text that I shared was only a draft just to portray the way I’m intending to head towards. That is not my final contribution. I personally intend to go through and edit each and every paragraph prior to moving anything into the live article. Policy especially on sourcing and neutral point of view is something I have to closely stick to and I apologize if my mention of drafting AI gave the impression that I was outsourcing all editorial control. Just like the colonial era sources, there are serious concerns about the rule of Raj era. In my sandbox I dilly dallies with the notion of referring these as historical references by saying “19th century accounts” or “old gazetteers reported”. In addition, I’ve included modern anthropological work Louise Michelutti and Dipankar Gandhi, which elevates the article. I’m not ignoring your suggestions, I do have to follow the instructions and write an article that is adequately referenced, well balanced, and complete in historical context.

And btw please don't look and compare my texts with the older text of me because I've changed my writing style and grammar style a lot, it has been improved and more formal now

If you think that a part of my approach still does not follow policy, could you please have a look? Nlkyair012 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that I do not consider these Raj period sources as modern evidence for the Kamaria Ahirs; I am solely presenting them to make a historical point- calling them ‘nineteenth century accounts’ or ‘pre independence gazetteers,’ and quoting what British or other colonial writers wrote then, and not what they would be seen as indisputable facts today. WP:RAJ notes that there should be caution with regards to these sources on the particular social standing or genealogy of the current times. That is why I am modernizing the material (like what Lucia Michelutti, Dipankar Gupta, et al, do) to make the old materials more balanced and contextualized. Lastly, I also want to emphasize that the draft version of the sandbox I sent is not definitive. It is a draft made by AI and I’m modifying it personally and adding it to the main page if use advise and be careful about it. If any of my submissions are found to be more conflictive than just historical references or futher policy contraining, I would happily amemnd them my self seek the edit suggestions that enables adherence in better frameworks to the outline se of the Wikipedia policies so thanks for that and also am grateful for your time when you realize my appreciation for your feedback if that is fine with you. Nlkyair012 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]