User talk:Almighty34

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of Telugu people does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to M. Karunanidhi, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC) ==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Telugu people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Damarla Chennapa Nayakadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating C. Jagannatha Rao.

User:Path slopu while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your contributions. I have reviewed your article and have some suggestions. It is better if you can add some categories, sections to the article. Regards

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Path slopu}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PATH SLOPU 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, சுப்பராய சாஸ்திரி. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Subbaraya Sastri. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Subbaraya Sastri. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Muthuracha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The4lines (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Almighty34

Thank you for creating Muthuracha.

User:QueerEcofeminist, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Better try, please write more context and sources to this article. You can ping me for help on how to find sources. thanks

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|QueerEcofeminist}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am having to revert you edits at Muthuraja. The quotes you provide do not seem to support the statements and, worse, it is clear that you are using very selective search phrases via Google Books etc. That practice leads to confirmation bias and is not acceptable, sorry. I also think you are actually misreading the article because it looks like what you are trying to prove is that the community are of Telugu origin rather than Tamil but in fact the article says they are mostly Tamil speaking, which is not the same thing as a statement as to their origin. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Sitush (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You will need to discuss the recent changes to Muthuraja. Please do so at Talk:Muthuraja and obtain consensus for a preferred version. My revert is not an acceptance of the article now being "the right version". - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Muthuraja never called Valaiyar so please avoid Muthuraja page unwanted edit.Madraskalai (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

have seen the article and It says "communities in the Andhra-Telangana region, community in recent years has been influenced by Hindutva ideology and have been more assertive against Dalits". This statement is super personal and cannot be generalized into one community or class. There hasn't been been one particular statement proving this in the recent history and it should be the subject of high risk for other users who read this article. Hence I request you to please check and possibly edit/remove this and sorry to say this but do not make a personal obligation without knowing what it means to the society. Thank you. Vishalsanga99 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Almighty34! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Balija that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir--Almighty34 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madurai Nayak dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garikapati.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

i'm sorry i will change--Almighty34 (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve noticed you have added Shivappa Nayaka as balija king, but the source youve referenced clearly states it was during Bhadrappa Nayaka’s time that power came to banajigas. Please remove Shivappa nayaka from list of Balija rulers in Balija page. Thank you. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.277202/page/n55/mode/2up

Bitterpill99 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your earlier correction of shivappa nayaka. In Balija page you have mentioned channapatna rayas “who ruled Bangalore”. Please remove this reference to bangalore. Channapatna raya ruled channapatna, and not Bangalore which was ruled by their contemporaries Yelahanka nadaprabhus. Thank you Bitterpill99 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish at Gavara, but in most cases, an article's reference section shouldn't be 4x longer than the article itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I assure you that I will not repeat the mistake in the future. thank you sir for your guidance.--Almighty34 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Balija Medieval History I think I can agree what you said about Mukundadeva. I do not see anywhere in the referenced inscription where it says that Balijas have lived in Orugallu. You said, "Balija as a community is seen for the first time in a Panyam Inscription (AD.1319) of Kakatiya king Prataparudradeva." Panyam is in Kurnool and that is mentioned in the description of the inscription. My advise is to include that also in the article in the Medieval History section by creating a heading for Eastern Chalukyas or Gajapathis, which ever is appropriate. I think there must be a section for pre-medival history as Balijas origin can be traced from much earlier than 500AD and many earlier books on Balijas have referenced mauryan, satavahan, pallava and vishnukundin times as well.

Hi Almighty34. Thank you for your work on Koovanur, Kallakurichi. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add the population along with a ref from the official indian census site.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I also want to address the citations currently used in the article that classify the Muthuraja/Mutharaiyar community as primarily Telugu. These include:

1. Athreya, Venkatesh B.; Djurfeldt, Göran; Lindberg, Staffan (1990) — Barriers Broken
2. K. M. Venkataramaiah (1996) — A Handbook of Tamil Nadu
3. Eveline Masilamani-Meyer (2004) — Kattavarayan Katai
4. Sanghvi, Balakrishnan & Karve (1981) — Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu

While these are academically published, there are two major concerns with relying on them as the primary basis for defining the community’s ethnolinguistic origin:

Bro please update atlease Muthuraja subcaste under mutharaiyar is tamil speaking while mudiraju is telugu. hence take telugu out of the muthuraja article ~2025-35932-76 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35932-76 I have updated it.--Almighty34 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for updating. One more thing I rquest you to update is both muthuraja and muthuraja naidu comes under mutharaiyer community so please update the first paragraph in this following words "Mutharaiyar consists of both tamil communities and as well telugu community,muthuraja comes under mutharaiyar is tamil speaking community while muthuraja naidu is telugu speaking community.muthuraja community is historically connected to tamil speaking mutharaiyar dynasty".@Almighty34l ~2025-35932-76 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Final I beg you to please include Mutharaiyar dynasty origin also

== 1. Origin of Mutharaiyar (Tamil) ==

All early Mutharaiyar chiefs (7th–9th century) are known only from Tamil inscriptions found in Thanjavur–Pudukottai–Tiruchirappalli regions, and they used pure Tamil titles like Perumbidugu Mutharaiyar, Valavarayar, and Ayyan. Modern historians (Karashima, Subbarayalu, Mahalingam) classify them as Tamil-speaking feudal chiefs of the Kaveri delta, with no inscriptional or linguistic evidence for Telugu origin.

----

== 2. No proven link to Kalabhras ==

The “Mutharaiyar = Kalabhra” theory is an early 1900s speculation by Gopinatha Rao, made before most Mutharaiyar inscriptions were discovered. Modern research rejects this link because Kalabhras belong to an earlier period (3rd–6th century), follow different religious traditions, and have no inscriptional continuity with the Mutharaiyars. Therefore it is considered a fringe, outdated hypothesis under WP:DUE.@Almighty34l

~2025-35932-76 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please update from

Muthuraja (also known as Mutharaiyar) is a Tamil and Telugu speaking community found in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

to

Muthuraja consists of both tamil and telugu speaking community's with different cultural roots ~2025-37146-15 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Almighty34l ~2025-37146-15 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35932-76 I have updated it.--Almighty34 (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

please add this bro:

2. No proven link to Kalabhras ==

The “Mutharaiyar = Kalabhra” theory is an early 1900s speculation by Gopinatha Rao, made before most Mutharaiyar inscriptions were discovered. Modern research rejects this link because Kalabhras belong to an earlier period (3rd–6th century), follow different religious traditions, and have no inscriptional continuity with the Mutharaiyars. Therefore it is considered a fringe, outdated hypothesis under WP:DUE.@Almighty34l

~2025-35932-76 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35932-76, The information about this should be written in the Mutharaiyar dynasty article.--Almighty34 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

can you please update this information in mutharaiyar (which is written in tamil) article .i cant update their because i am new to wikipedia .@Almighty34l ~2025-35932-76 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You can write in the Mutharaiyar dynasty article with Reliable sources.--Almighty34 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35932-76 I have updated it.--

/The origin of the Mutharaiyar is shrouded in mystery. Historian T. A. Gopinatha Rao equates them with the Kalabhras as Suvaran Maaran, a prominent 8th century Mutharaiyar king of Thanjavur is styled KalavaraKalvan in one of his inscriptions. Few historians like Rao read the epithet it as KalabhraKalvan interchanging the letter v with b.[3] This linguistic speculation has been rejected by later scholars due to lack of evidence. The idea originated from a misreading of an inscription, and there is no inscriptional or historical evidence to support a continuous link between the two groups/.--Almighty34 (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Please add this in mutharaiyar article under origin:

No proven link to Kalabhras ==

The “Mutharaiyar = Kalabhra” theory is an early 1900s speculation by Gopinatha Rao, made before most Mutharaiyar inscriptions were discovered. Modern research rejects this link because Kalabhras belong to an earlier period (3rd–6th century), follow different religious traditions, and have no inscriptional continuity with the Mutharaiyars. Therefore it is considered a fringe, outdated hypothesis under WP:DUE.@Almighty34l

Please add this in religion section: Mutharaiyars are hindus Historical inscriptions show that the Mutharaiyar chiefs of the 7th–9th centuries were predominantly Hindu, with grants recorded to both Shaivite and Vaishnavite temples across the Thanjavur–Pudukottai region. There is no inscriptional evidence linking them to Jainism, and the idea of a Jain affiliation appears only in outdated theories that attempted to connect the Mutharaiyars with the earlier Kalabhra dynasty. Modern scholarship rejects this link, and the Mutharaiyars are widely regarded as Tamil Hindu chiefs of the early medieval Kaveri delta ~2025-36805-03 (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-36805-03 Bro, you have to write from reliable sources, otherwise it may be reverted by other users.--Almighty34 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

While early-20th-century historian T. A. Gopinatha Rao proposed identifying the Mutharaiyars with the Kalabhras—based largely on interpreting the epithet “Kalavara-Kalvan” as Kalabhra-Kalvan—this view is not accepted by modern scholars.<ref>Rao, T. A. Gopinatha (1910). Inscriptions of the Pudukkottai State. Government Press.</ref>

Contemporary research notes that the Mutharaiyars were a Tamil warrior-chief lineage flourishing in the 7th–9th centuries CE,<ref>Subramanian, T. N. (1966). The Cholas. University of Madras.</ref> whereas the Kalabhras belong to an earlier period (3rd–6th centuries CE) and remain obscure in origin and identity.<ref>Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1955). A History of South India. Oxford University Press.</ref>

Because there is no epigraphic, genealogical, or cultural continuity linking the Kalabhras and the Mutharaiyars, and since Rao’s proposal relied on a speculative reading rather than inscriptional evidence, historians regard the “Mutharaiyar = Kalabhra” hypothesis as an outdated fringe theory.<ref>University of MS (2023). Tamil Nadu History to 1336 AD. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, pp. 44–46.</ref><ref>“Mutharaiyar dynasty”, Wikipedia, summarizing mainstream scholarly consensus.</ref>

i pasted this in mutharaiyar article dont revert this bro @Almighty34l. ~2025-36805-03 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

முத்தரையர் - தமிழ் விக்கிப்பீடியா முத்தரையர்கள் களப்பிரர்களின் வழி வந்தவர்கள் என்றும், சேர, சோழ, பாண்டிய மன்னர்களை வென்றவர்கள் என்றும் சில அறிஞர்கள் குறிப்பிடுகின்றனர். this above information alone not enough extra should include then only it is correct முத்தரையர்கள் களப்பிரர்களின் சந்ததியர் என்ற கருத்துக்கு கல்வெட்டு, வரலாறு, கலாசார ஆதாரங்கள் எதுவும் ஆதரவாக இல்லை.<ref>K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Cholas.</ref> இவ்விரு சமூகங்களும் வேறு காலத்தில், வேறு அரசியல் சூழலில், வேறு கலாசார அடையாளத்துடன் செயல்பட்டவை.<ref>T.V. Mahalingam, South Indian Polity.</ref> முத்தரையர்களைச் சார்ந்த கல்வெட்டுகள் அவர்களை பல்லவர் ஆட்சியின் உள்ளூர் அரசர்களாகவே வரையறுக்கின்றன; களப்பிர வம்சத்துடன் தொடர்பு கொண்டதாக எங்கும் பதிவில்லை.<ref>Noboru Karashima, A Concordance of the Names in the Chola Inscriptions.</ref> ஆகவே முத்தரையர்கள் களப்பிர வம்சத்துடன் தொடர்புடையவர்கள் என்ற கருதி வரலாற்று ஆதாரமற்றது.<ref>Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India.</ref> ~2025-37146-15 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I cannot update that article i dont know why so only i am asking you to update bro @Almighty34l. ~2025-37146-15 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)