User talk:Nabhas Chandra

Thank you for uploading File:Vanarāja Cāvaḍā and his wives at Pañcāsara Pārśvanātha Patan.jpg.

This file is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the file description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 10:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I have clicked this picture myself, using my mobile phone. Also, this sculpture is in a publically accessible place - Panchasara Parshvanatha Jain Temple at Patan, Gujarat, India. I have clicked it using my phone. What should I do? I'm new to this and not sure on how to act now. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have edited the file description page accordingly. Next time you upload, please use this formatting as an example, or use c:Special:UploadWizard. — Ирука¹³ 09:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to Premchand Roychand. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ou issued a warning to my edits citing a source that does not mention anything about the sect. Please provide the correct source if you intend to warn someone.

Do not misuse Twinkle; improper use of warning tools can result in your Twinkle rights being revoked. Starry Pine (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not vandalise the page. In fact, I restored information that you had removed. Please provide the correct source if you intend to warn someone. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nabhas Chandra what is the source? There is literally nothing that IP user cited to add the sect of Premchand Roychand Starry Pine (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked the source added by IP there is litterally nothing about his sect and i check evrything before removing any edits. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nabhas Chandra This is the exact sentence from the reference

"Roychand’s own story is typical of Mumbai as a city. He was born in Surat in March 1831 into a family belonging to the Bania Caste of Shravak Jains. When he was a child, his parents took him and his siblings to Mumbai, where business people from different areas of Gujarat and were settling to carry on trade." Starry Pine (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no mention of his sect in the whole article. did you even checked those source? without checking those source you warned me using twinkle, You must adhere to wiki policys (read: Wikipedia:Verifiability). ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Premchand Roychand, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Hello, @Nabhas Chandra For your information, I didn’t remove your references; I only moved them to the body. It’s not because of your source—you added a good source. However, even after several editors removed the sect from the lead, you keep adding it back. Please understand the Wikipedia policy and why it is removed. I moved it for better readability and to align with Wikipedia’s formatting standards. (read:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Not several editors, there was only one editor who removed the sect from the lead. Also, while the discussion is still ongoing on your talk page, it is incorrect to go ahead and push your POV until you convince the other editors involved in the discussion. I kept the sect as it is and added a reference, so that the state of the page is the same as it was before it was challenged by you. Until we achieve consensus, I believe it will be appropriate that you don't remove the sect from the lead. If you still disagree, we should resume the discussion on your talk page. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nabhas Chandra: Please understand, this is not about POV. The removal from the lead was done because of formatting and WP:LEAD compliance, not because of the source itself. Your reference is fine — I didn’t remove it, I moved it to the body where it belongs per style guidelines.

I’m honestly frustrated because you are framing this as if it’s a POV dispute, when it is actually a formatting/policy issue. The sect detail is already mentioned in the article body with references, so repeating it in the lead is redundant and against MOS.

I have already issued a warning because you reverted the content. I would prefer not to issue a final warning. If such reverts continue, other editors may issue a final warning. Please read Wikipedia policies carefully and adjust your editing approach; otherwise, further reverts may result in being blocked from editing. ~~Starry Pine (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I see the sect information to be in a subtle tone and not in a tone that is to push a POV. Other examples where the sect has been mentioned in the lead are Acharya Vidyasagar, Gyansagar, as well as Shantisagar. Only by mentioning the sect that is followed by the subject of the article, I don't think WP:LEAD is flouted in any manner. If formatting were an issue, we would have had to remove information related to the sect from all such pages. However, that is not the case and I'm not in favour of that. If we are unsure of the subject's sect, it should not be mentioned, but when we are, we should keep it succinct, subtle and specific in the lead itself. I am certain that the word "Śvetāmbara" or "Digambara" cause any readability issues. WP:LEAD also lays out a rule to be specific in the lead. I don't think this point needs more discussion because if we remove information related to the sect from this page, it'll also affect a lot of other pages and to me, that is neither right, nor necessary. I hope you'll understand this in all good faith. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nabhas Chandra, thanks for your perspective. However, there’s a clear difference here. WP:LEAD requires the lead to summarise the subject’s most defining aspects. For a businessperson, this means their profession, achievements, and why they are notable — not necessarily their sect or caste unless it is directly relevant to their notability.

The examples you gave — Acharya Vidyasagar, Gyansagar, Shantisagar — are monks, and their sect affiliation is a core part of their identity. That’s why it belongs in the lead. This is not the case for most businesspeople, unless reliable sources show the sect is central to why they are known.

Moreover, Wikipedia articles should be user-friendly and engaging, not overly bogged down with details that distract from the subject’s notability. Adding sect information everywhere in both the lead and body — especially in an article about one of India’s most famous businessmen — can make it seem repetitive and less focused on what readers are most likely to want to know: why they are notable.

For consistency and clarity, sect/caste information should generally be placed in the body, unless it is proven to be part of the defining identity of the subject. This keeps articles concise, readable, and policy-compliant. You can see MOS:LEAD guidelines here. ~~Starry Pine (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Premchand Roychand was a Svetambara philanthropist. Along with that, he was also involved in the acquisition of Palitana Hills from the State of Bhavnagar for the Anandji Kalyanji Jain Trust. Additionally, he commissioned the construction of Rajabai Clock Tower in Bombay for his blind mother who wanted to be informed of the sunset beforehand so that she could eat dinner before sunset in accordance with Jain principles. Being Svetambara is part of several of his philanthropic works. It is appropriately a part of the lead. 2409:4081:58F:E9A3:38FF:B180:915F:5C9A (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)