User talk:Dinopce

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ambashtha, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Please be more careful – your edits added text to a verbatim quote (when something is quoted straight from the source, with quotation marks, that has to be kept exactly as it is), and it messed up the references which you would have seen immediately if you had looked at the article after you had edited it. bonadea contributions talk 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

Please let me know as to why the following has been reverted? I've provided the references as well.

The Ambashtha Kayasthas (found chiefly in Southern Bihar), Crooke suggests "may be connected with the old Ambastha caste of Western-Punjab mentioned in the Mahabharata" as some Kayasthas are also associated with the practice of medicine and surgery.^[1][2] Dinopce (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also,

Please show me where I made an error of messing with a quote.

Please be more careful – your edits added text to a verbatim quote (when something is quoted straight from the source, with quotation marks, that has to be kept exactly as it is), and it messed up the references which you would have seen immediately if you had looked at the article after you had edited it. bonadea contributions talk 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Dinopce (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I checked your reverts.

My edits just added the words "Western-Punjab" to that sentence.

I even provided the reference for it.

Please let me know the reason why my edit was reverted in your own words.

If the information quoted and with reference is maligning a particular community's image and is intended to vandalize the page,then shouldn't that be reverted.

The entire page is dubious.

The user named Ekdalian has made changes to it.

Ambastha refers to the offspring of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother, whose traditional occupation was the practice of medicine.----. Here Brahmin is a Varna(Category of Hinduism).

"A son begotten by a Brahman in the three castes [i.e. on a woman of either of the upper three classes] will be a Brahman" (also suggested by G.S. Ghurye)[4]-----

1)Here the word Brahman is being used instead of. Brahmin. 2)Also,the words "three castes" are referring to Brahmin varna(category of Hinduism). Brahman means a metaphysical state of universe.

Brahman= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Varna's(categories)of Hinduism

Brahmin(The learned)-ends with "Min". Kshatriya(The warriors) Vaishya(Merchant) Shudra(Labourer or Farmer)

Brahmin(The priest)=who is the priest of a temple.

This user named Ekdalian has used references and sources to write down sentences at that page but IT ULTIMATELY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

His dubious statements(EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SOURCED AND REFERENCES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THEM) 1)Ambastha refers to the offspring of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother-- Here 'Brahmin' has been used as Varna. 2)Regarding the varna status of the offspring of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother, J. Muir (1868) cites the Mahabharata and says that "A son begotten by a Brahman in the three castes [i.e. on a woman of either of the upper three classes] will be a Brahman" (also suggested by G.S. Ghurye)----- Here "Brahmin father" has been used as a Varna. Then he cites Mahabharat and has written "A son begotten by a Brahman in the three castes is a Brahman".--- He's used the word 'Brahman' which means the following https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Even if I'll accept the word 'Brahman' to be 'Brahmin' Varna,still the sentence-(A son begotten by a Brahman in the three castes [i.e. on a woman of either of the upper three classes] will be a Brahman) doesn't make any sense!! He's comparing a Brahmin varna to a caste.

Which 3 castes??

BRAHMIN,KSHATRIYA and VAISHYA are Varna. Which 3 castes is this article talking about?

3)Then in the 3rd para of Mythology and Varna status, he's talking about a warrior tribe 'Ambasth' named in Mahabharat.

Can you see the dubious nature of this Article?

First he cites references from Mahabharat and

says that "A son begotten by a Brahman in the three castes [i.e. on a woman of either of the upper three classes] will be a Brahman"

and then in the 3rd para,he cites another reference from Mahabharat and

Tells about a 'warrior tribe Ambastha'. Warriors are Kshatriya(warriors).

First he's saying that Ambasthas are Brahmins(son begotten....) and then he's saying that they're Kshatriya. Dinopce (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Brahmin(The priest)=who is the priest of a temple is a CASTE. Dinopce (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part of "when something is quoted straight from the source, with quotation marks, that has to be kept exactly as it is" was unclear, but since you changed the quoted text yet again, I guess it wasn't quite clear what I meant. Quotes from a source, within quotation marks, cannot be changed even to add extra information. We can't even fix spelling errors if we choose to quote text.

Another thing: it is impossible to follow your talk page posts for several reasons: please try to write more succinctly, don't copy other people's posts in your own posts unless you mark them very clearly (for instance by using italics or a {{tq}} template), and please indent your post with colons when you respond to other people's posts. You simply add a colon before the paragraph – one colon more than the post you are replying to, ao if you respond to this, put two colons :: at the start of the paragraph. --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Do not under any circumstances post the kind of opinionated crap about other editors that you have been doing higher up on this page. We do not know or care about the nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, caste, sexuality, or any other personal characteristics of other editors, and making disparaging comments about others based on any of that can and should lead to blocks. bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I understood the part about quotation and links long back.

The quoted texts haven't been changed by me. I think you're confusing me with some other user. If not,then please let me know as to where have I not followed the norms set by wikipedia regarding the quotation and links part.

Secondly,about the "opinionated crap about other editors"---

I'm really sorry that any of my opinions was disparaging enough that you had to use the word "crap" to clarify it. I didn't do anything on purpose!!

The opinion that I made was IN MY OWN PAGE regarding other editors. I haven't accused any editor on the main talk page of Kayastha OR on their talk pages regarding their caste,gender,ethnicity etc.

One thing that I couldn't understand here is the fact that if I'll not talk about the topic of caste,religion etc on the main Kayasth's talk page with other editors,then how will we understand unanimously as to what changes should be kept and what changes shouldn't be kept.

Note:The Kayasth talk page will contain topics regarding caste,race,religion etc. It'll only lead to better understanding between other editors and me.

Note1: I've recently added the word "South Bihar" in the Ambasth page. If that's what you're talking about in your 1st para above,then let me give you a link where it's clearly mentioned about the word 'South-Bihar'.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MihuAAAAMAAJ&q=South&hl=en

Pg60: It has mentioned the word "South-Bihar".

PS:I'm opening a discussion on your talk page regarding the recent edits made by you in the Ambasthpage as I feel that your changes are going to lead to further confusion over there.I don't want to discuss it here as it will be too long here. Dinopce (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

'This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.'---

Please don't confuse me with any other user!!

I just answered the questions shot at me in my previous discussion page above this discussion page.

I NEVER STARTED ANYTHING. INSTEAD I'VE TRIED TO REASON WITH THE OTHER USER WHO IS BLATANTLY BLSMING OTHER WIKIPEDIANS INITIALLY.

Dinopce (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not copy bits of other users' posts into your own posts without showing very clearly that you are quoting someone else. You were already asked not to do this.

Talking about other users in terms of speculating about any irrelevant characteristics such as nationality etc is not okay anywhere on Wikipedia. Mentioning caste, religion and so on (not of other editors, but as things that exist) on the talk pages of articles that deal with such topics is a different thing; there, too, discussion has to be neutral and any attempt to present one group of people as inferior is unacceptable, but article talk pages should of course be used to discuss the subject of the article (but not, as you point out, other editors). What you seem to have misunderstood is that this is not "your own" page, and saying things that amount to "that user belongs to [this group of people] and is unable to write about [another group of people]" is unacceptable here as well. If a user's edits are disruptive, discuss those edits with the user, on the article talk page, or as a final resort via dispute resolution, but do not discuss the user themself, and do not make any speculations about why the edits were disruptive. As for the warning above, there is no confusion: you posted this and this.

You changed a quotation from the source here and here. Those are not anyone else's edits, and in the second one you even said in the edit summary that you were adding your own words. The text in the source does not mention Western Punjab or the Mahabharata; you added a different source where those are mentioned but that's not the point – the quoted text comes from Russell's book, and if that quote is kept in the article, we can't add information or clarifications to the quote itself.

When indenting your replies, every new paragraph has to be indented with colons. Previewing your post to make sure that the formatting is correct is often a good idea, on talk pages as well as in articles. I took the liberty of indenting your reply above correctly, to illustrate how it should be done. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your changing of quotation part above:

Those sentences are not exactly taken from Russell's book only but from another book named 'Kayasthas:a study in the formation and early history of a caste'

That entire paragraph is formed from the amalgamation of JUMBLED WORDS present in both of the above books and not just from Russell's book.

Somebody has deleted that other link pasted over there. I added the link over there again.

If the sources are from two DIFFERENT BOOKS,then what to do,if not write in your own words for the sentence to make SENSE.

PLEASE CLARIFY THIS PART.

Also,clarify the question that I've written in my recent edit changes to that page.

I'm pasting that question below.

My following question is regarding the Ambasthapage.

Even though this article is about the "Ambastha" IN GENERAL, the confusion starts because this page KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY IS LINKED TO THE "Ambastha" word mentioned in the Kayastha & Chitraguptavanshi_Kayasthapage WHICH IS REFERRED TO "AMBASTHA KAYASTHA ONLY" AND NOT TO "Ambastha in general".

My Ques:If this page is about "Ambastha" in general,then why is this page LINKED to the Kayasthapage & Chitraguptavanshi_Kayasthapage which ONLY TALKS ABOUT AMBASTHA KAYASTHAS and not about Ambastha in general.

Please clarify this confusion of mine as well!!

That's it. Dinopce (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

  The link that you deleted by calling it a superfluous link was meant to make sense between the Ambastha of Western-Punjab with the South-Bihar part.

Please go through the following link to understand my point!

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=53qCQY5VzvsC&pg=PT372&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ambastha&f=false

If you can,then please make changes to the link no.(3)of that paragraph BY UPDATING THAT LINK.

My internet is slow here. Dinopce (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can,then please make changes to the link no.(3)of that paragraph BY UPDATING THAT LINK WITH THE LINK THAT I PROVIDED HERE. The mention of South-Bihar part is in the next page which was not visible in the OLD LINK. Plz update that link on my behalf.

I'm experiencing slow internet here due to some network issue on my side. Dinopce (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please learn how to write on a talk page. I have explained indenting a couple of times now. No, I will not remove the source for the existing text and replace it. As regards your comment Those sentences are not exactly taken from Russell's book only but from another book named 'Kayasthas:a study in the formation and early history of a caste' – the issue here is with the quotation. The quoted text, the text inside quotation marks. That is taken from Russell's book. Do not remove that reference, since it supports the information, including the quote. I notice that you have avocated the use of Google Translate – do you use that yourself? That might explain some confusion, since Google Translate often provides very misleading translations. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

  I'll answer our 
  confusion tomorrow.

  I use a cellphone to 
  type. I think the T9 
  dictionary is creating a 
  problem from my side. I 
  can see that many of my 
  previous replies here 
  had typos.
   
  Is this better (the 
  indentation part)? Dinopce (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

After I applied the colon before my reply, it's showing me these two boxes. Dinopce (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry!
  I understand the 
  indentation part. But 
  the use of 'colon' is 
  leading to the creation 
  of boxes.
Dinopce (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't understand as to why it's giving me these boxes Dinopce (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll go through some youtube video of how to write in the talk page step by step and then begin my edits again.

Give me one week time before I can continue our talk here. Dinopce (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm opening a new section because the one above is a mix of topics...

Let me try to explain exactly what the issue is with the change in quoted text.

Your suggested text from this edit is as follows: The term "Ambastha" also refers to a sub-caste of Kayasthas(chiefly from Southern Bihar), and Crooke suggests that "they may be connected with the old Ambastha caste from Western-Punjab whose name has been mentioned in the Indian Epic Mahabharata"

This is sourced from the book by Russell, which contains the text: "Mr. Crooke suggests that they may be connected with the old Ambastha caste who were noted for their skill in medicine." You will notice that this sentence contains no mention of Western Punjab or the Mahabharata. What you were trying to do was combine this quotation with another quoted sentence, "The Ambashthas were a famous tribe from Western Punjab and have been mentioned in the Mahabharata", which comes from a different source (Gupta 1996).

OK, I understand what you were trying to do. However, you need to do it in a different way – you cannot add parts of the new quote to the existing one, because then we end up with what looks like a quotation but is actually a new sentence. You will need to add the other text in another way, not inside the quotation marks. My suggestion would be to paraphrase rather than quote it – add a sentence that you put in your own words, without the "famous" part of course as that is not neutral – before the Gupta source which is still in the article (I restored it). I hope this makes sense. There is no hurry about any of this, of course. --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you finally understood my point!

I think you'll be happy to know that I've also understood your point finally regarding the text present inside the quotes""! Dinopce (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The part of indentation is also clear to me but if I provide space or colon before my sentence, it gives me the box.

Will have to learn this part from a video tutorial. I'll be back after a week or so.

Before leaving,I'd like to get one last thing clear.

I'VE NOT HARASSED ANY WIKIPEDIAN HERE!

You've clubbed my statement with some other user's statement. I actually gave an answer to what this other USER sent me.

The discussion page named "Good Morning Sir" contains personal messages between me and Pandya101.

Even there,I haven't used any vulgar words regarding any other WIKIPEDIAN.

Since I had to answer his particular statement's answer which HE PINGED TO ME LONG BACK, I put HIS STATEMENT IN A QUOTE and then answered him so that he doesn't become confused himself.

I also know that he uses choicest of words regarding other users of wikipedia. I'm admitting that!

But I've never harassed any other user on wikipedia preferably Shrivastav101.

Please don't get confused btw me and some other user.

I'm a mature person.

Dinopce (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood the colon usage for indentation.

It was due to some setting issue in my mobile's keyboard.

Removed the quotations in that page of Ambastha and finally wrote in my own words. Plz check and let me know. Dinopce (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As per consensus at WP:INB, the caste of a living subject can only be mentioned in articles if they self-identify that in the accompanying source(s). For example this where the subject clearly identifies as a Jat. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Understood.

So,if I'm adding a caste of a person. I'll have to find a place where that person himself might have said that he's a Kayasth.eg:Shatrughan Sinha.

Is this about the recent change that I made in his article?

What if I couldn't find him saying it anywhere in the article?What to do in that case? Entire India knows that he's a Kayastha. Dinopce (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If you couldn't find a reliable source in which the subject self-identifies his/her caste, then don't bother adding them in the articles. Wikipedia had been plagued by caste wars before. After multiple discussions and consensus we decided not to include it unless the subject themselves self-identify. Even the mention of linguistic community requires self-identification if things get confusing (that is different reliable sources list different communities). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Understood.:) Dinopce (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added the link of Yashwant Sinha in the Kayasthapage as his wikipedia account already mentioned that he's a Kayastha in the Early Life section.

This might have happened before you guys started the rule about self-identification of Caste.

This is why I urge you to consider this. Dinopce (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know whether I can add his name again or not? Dinopce (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 :I've added the link of Yashwant Sinha in the Kayastha page as his wikipedia account already mentioned that he's a Kayastha in the "Early Life section".

This might have happened before you guys started the rule about self-identification of Caste.

 :This is why I urge you to consider this.
 :Please let me know whether I can add his name again or not? Dinopce (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I just saw that :you've deleted the :"Kayastha" part from the Yashwant_Sinha page.

My question) If you'll :consider the WP:INB to :pages made before you made :this rule,then all the :previously mentioned LINKS :WITHIN THE "Notable People :section" from the Kayastha page and :OTHER PAGES of other :castes will get deleted in :this way!

IT'LL NOT MAKE ANY :SENSE!PLZ CONSULT ABOUT :THIS WITH WIKIPEDIA ADMINS :OR LEGISLATORS AND LET ME :KNOW ABOUT IT. Fix this :problem of yours Dinopce (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry,I've still not completely understood the indentation part.

It seems that colon has to be inserted before every sentence here and not every line. :) Dinopce (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, it works the other way around. When consensus changes, and guidelines change, existing articles should be edited and updated to reflect this. We don't have some kind of grandfather clause mandating content which consensus is against including, in articles that were written prior to that consensus. If you think about it, the reason such a discussion comes up in the first place has to be based on existing articles... so it would not make any kind of sense to have different guidelines or policies for articles that were written after a certain date. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

But, if the editors will keep on removing the 'Kayastha part' from PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA,then sooner or later the "Notable People" section in the Kayastha page will not contain the names of people WHO ARE ALIVE and will only contain the names of people whose names have been mentioned in some obituary section of a tabloid or newspaper.

This goes for other pages in wikipedia as well and not just the page I'm concerned about.

There should be a 'FIX-IT' solution to this issue! Dinopce (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this applies to all articles – not just those related to caste, but all articles (but when it has to do with the WP:BLP policy, including identifying people as belonging to a particular gender, caste, ethnicity or what have you, it is extra important). As only living people are able to self-identify as belonging to a group, I don't understand why this requirement would make it less likely that articles about living people would contain that information. If anything, the opposite is true – if a claim about caste is only found in an obituary, that claim shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article. There is, indeed, a "fix-it" solution, which is to fix any articles which go against what the existing (and strong) consensus mandates. Which is what was done to Yashwant Sinha. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dinopce, you are a new editor here so you are suppose to listen to senior editors who speak rules and policies. If you keep on edit-warring, you'll get blocked. I explained to you above why the mention of caste in a BLP needs to be self-identified. Apart from teh above, there are numerous surnames that can be found in multiple castes. One cannot comprehend caste from surnames like Sharma, Dutta, Chaudhary, Singh, Das, Jaiswal, etc. Because of this, in the past, Indian casteists used to add their preferred caste to BLP articles. As for Sinha, I had known a Bihari Rajput for 3 years who had this surname, and he wasn't a Kayastha. Some surnames are also found among not-SOuth Asians, Reddi, Gill, Das, etc. So, we have decided that self-identification thing.

You should understand that the English Wikipedia is for the English speaking people worldwide, most of whom do not give a damn about the caste of an Indian. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood Flyndfotberserk. Dinopce (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not a casteist per say.:)

But,I'm casteist to those people who were,are or will be casteist to me.

The same goes for race.:)

Dinopce (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We've a way to identify it though. :)

We ask,"Oh. So, you're a Sinha? Original or...?"

If he says,"Original",then it means that he's a Kayastha.

Bye Dinopce (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel you. I've been editing since 2009 and started following Wikipedia in 2005. I've seen caste and BLP articles being literally filled with junk. People would add anything, to put others down and glorify their own caste. It obviously extended to biographies. So as to curb those, self-identification came to be, sicne most vandalism occurred in living people's articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood Dinopce (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at User talk:Iam shivansh srivastava, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please stop speculating about the intent of other editors, and do not under any circumstances theorise about them having an "ill intent" or similar. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand. bonadea contributions talk 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. Won't do that again.

But you never helped me with the Ambasth Kayasth part. You know my intent to use those two sources to form a paragraph in my own words.

I'm not verbally intelligent like you or any other old editor.

Instead of removing the link containing the source ,you could've helped me frame that paragraph so that the information from both links were there.

Also,I couldn't see any pompous term thing that the other user wrote over there. The title has to get the names highlighted.

Please explain if you have the time.

Dinopce (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I remember,you deleted the link from the Ambastha page as well but then restored it by calling the reference relevant enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/945397148

I removed the part "of Western-Punjab mentioned in the Mahabharata" out of the quoted statement said by Crooke long ago. Dinopce (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I can understand that you are referring to the Crooke's statement about "the Ambastha Kayastha noted for medicine and surgery" part should come under quotations and he said nothing about Western Punjab and Mahabharata.

But,I've failed to form proper sentence structure while keeping all the information intact.

If you can,then please do it on my behalf. Dinopce (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

• From your edits to Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and its talkpage, you seem to be here purely to promote your own caste. When experienced editors inform you about our policies and guidelines concerning caste pages, you're not interested. Please note that sources from the Raj era are not supposed to be used; see this discussion. Please follow our guidelines and community consensus, or you will be either topic banned from caste pages, or blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen!

I am making edits(minor) on other articles as well. You can take a look at my other articles which I've bookmarked on my article page.

I'm not here to PROMOTE MY OWN CASTE. I'VE NOT WRITTEN ANYTHING WHICH DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE WP:NPOV till now. I made a few mistakes in the beginning but at that time,I didn't know about the rules.

I know that I'm an editor and not an admin!

I've few questions if I have the right to ask questions here.

Dinopce (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Do I have the right to ask questions here or somewhere else?Since I'm currently writing in caste related articles,so,it'll be caste related? Dinopce (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@differential calculus

Continuing our talk here instead of cluttering Sitush's talk page.

Your Comment:No Dinpoce. You are wrong. British cases have nothing to do with ckp. CKP were already classified as Kshatriya by arbiters in the brahmin community and even bajirao II issued official decree. They were doing thread ceremonies for centuries. There is historic evidence that they studied vedas and had thread ceremonies. There is no British case involving other groups like ckp. Every group is a different caste. All cases are from north India or Bengal. The simple reason is that the British had to go through religious texts was because Brahmans did not classify these subgroups(Bengali, north Indian) into any varna. However, in Maharashtra, caste varna is set in stone - do you know? - due to Brahman influence and sanskritization was not allowed unlike rest of India- read books on gramanya. Any brahmin who defied orders was ostracized. For example, there was a brahmin (last name bhat) at the famous Kolhapur temple who lost his caste because he recited some vedic verses before some marathas who were not classified as upper caste.  when I meant caste was set in stone it means - all decisions *are* now set in stone. Just google ckp munja you will find photos of events on facebook. Any caste that performed vedic rituals in maharashtra could be challenged. Saraswats, ckps, sonars etc were challenged. Only Saraswats and ckps prevailed due to decisions by brahmin arbitrators and because they had been following the shastras(learning vedas). These challenges and the verdicts that all had to follow were called gramanyas in marathi. There is historic evidence that saraswat/ckp performed thread ceremonies. The challenges were to stop the vedic rituals hence I said no sanskritization was allowed in maharashtra. This is a well known to amateur historians familiar with marathi history.I dont know much about chitragupta kayastha - I think they were educated people and they have produced great people like Rajendra Prasad and Lal Bahdur Shastri but I dont know much at all. My friendly and well meant advise is to be polite and request editors to understand your view point. If you agitate them, it will be counter-productive.

My comment: I'm not saying that the Britishers tried to classify the CKPs into shudra,vaishya etc just like they did for CKs as CKPs already had Kshatriya proof based on Gramanya etc. I'm saying that the final British Raj case 1926 declared all Kayasthas including CKPs as Kshatriya UNDER LAW LEGALLY. This is our status under law legally. You're confused!

Read the following pdf:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

Read point no. 42 & 71 to see the mention of CKPs.

Read point no. 12 to see that the Patna high court declared Calcutta High court's decision as inconclusive. Read point no. 67,68 and 73 properly for confusion btw Karan and Ambastha in Manu vs sub-caste of CKs

Politics was played against the Bengali Kayasthas(still Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas) by the Bengali Brahmins(anti-Kayastha toxic ones). They tried to make them shudra because they changed their surname from 'Verma' to 'Das'. They tried to play divide and rule against the Bengali Kayasthas by setting them different from Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. Bengal Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas had their own system of hierarchy. Kulin and Maulika.

The Bengali Brahmins(toxic ones) tried to make Bengali Kayastha shudra and vaishya etc. This is why Swami Vivekananda said:"I trace my descent to one at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers when he utters the words — यमाय धर्मराजाय चित्रगुप्ताय वै नमः — and whose descendants are the purest of Kshatriyas. If you believe in your mythology or your Paurânika scriptures, let these so-called reformers know that my caste, apart from other services in the past, ruled half of India for centuries. If my caste is left out of consideration, what will there be left of the present-day civilisation of India? In Bengal alone, my blood has furnished them with their greatest philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest historian, the greatest archaeologist, the greatest religious preacher; my blood has furnished India with the greatest of her modern scientists."

He was talking about the upakshatriya(secondary kshatriya) part of CKs obviously. CKPs already are Kshatriya according to scriptures even though the genes of CKPs are the same as Brahmins of Maharashtra(NO DIFFERENCE). He was a Vidwaan(extremely knowledgeable about almost everything)! You can't become a Vidwaan if you're not in Brahmin varna. Also,if Swami Vivekananda would have been shudra or vaishya or only Kshatriya(like Rajputs etc),then he wouldn't have got permission from his Guru Ramkrishna Paramhansa(Bengali Brahmin) before representing Hindus and establishing Hinduism as a religion in Parliament of World Religion in the 1800s. Can other Kshatriyas like Rajputs become Vidwaan? No! It's because they don't come under Brahmin varna. Also,shudra,vaishya can't read and write in Vedas.

I gave a classic example of Ravana(Brahmin King or Brahma-Kshatriya) to make people understand the case of CKs.

Read this book's description(about Bengali Kayasthas being Brahmins first and then Kshatriyas(due to their deeds)) written by a foreigner. This foreigner knows the truth!

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Sena_Dynasty.html?id=soKnMQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

People are writing nonsense about Kayasth like ambiguous caste etc based on such books(mentioned below in amazon.in) by taking advantage of Wikipedia's policies.

https://www.amazon.in/Formation-Colonial-State-India-1760-1860/dp/0415704472

Review from the above link. "This book makes it obvious that the author needs to do more research. The book shows that the writer (Bellenoit from US Naval Academy) does not have a good understanding of the hindu caste system. For example, there were several groups - some of these groups were warriors(Maharashtra) but Dr.Bellenoit , sitting half-way across the world, seems to be completely ignorant. Secondly, some of these groups were formally classified as Kshatriyas by the religious hindu leaders as early as the 16th century but Bellenoit seems to have not studied that. Other than in north India, these groups held very high positions but again Bellenoit does not know that. He also references books by some British Ethnographers like Steele (who were completely ignorant of Hinduism and have been considered unreliable) instead of British Historians like Grand Duff or Indian historians. Bellenoit also lacks sensitivity and empathy when writing about people. It shows that Bellenoit probably never read much about Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, Satyendra Nath Bose etc.."

Your Comment: Unknown editor, Satish is doing a good job. Even an amateur knows that every Kayastha subgroup is classified differently. All groups do not belong to same varna and treating them as same by you and shouting at Satish is wrong. The British poked their nose in this to classify only groups that were ambiguous (Brahmins had not classified them) and looked at the customs of each group before classifying them. For example, the CKP group was not part of any classification by the British because the Brahmins of Maharashtra (unlike other states) had Gramanyas where written classification was provided for twice born caste status. Today in Maharashtra, every caste other than Brahmins, Saraswats, CKPs and Pathare Prabhus is considered shudra no matter what they claim and that is why only these 4 have sacred thread ceremony officiated by brahmins. This is well known and there are numerous references and existence of highly educated scholars only from these 4 castes in the 19th century proves it. Incompetent people will not understand the intricacies. You can stop shouting at Satish who is doing a good job cleaning up nonsense that does not even match the books.

My Comment: I can understand that you didn't want the British courts to classify the CKPs in the Kayastha category and would've liked them to categorise CKPs differently(maybe in the category as Saraswats,Pathares and other Marathis doing the Gramanya). This is what I think that you want here. Right?

Before I start my answer,I'd like to say that Bengali Kayasthas are still Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas! They don't have different origin. If their origin is being considered differently here,then the origin of Kayasthas of Hyderabad or Andhra who came to work under Nizams should also be considered differently. Bengali Brahmins are still in the Panch-Gaud Brahmin category even though they had their own system of hierarchy(Kulin and Maulika) but Bengali Kayastha are being made different sub-group. Can't you see the divide and rule politics here being played against Bengali Kayasthas?

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Sena_Dynasty.html?id=soKnMQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

The above book clearly states that Gaur Kayasthas(sub-caste of CKs or Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas) of Sena Dynasty were Brahmins and then Kshatriyas (due to being Kings or rulers).

Nothing is given in our scriptures about Bengali Kayasthas being different sub-group! Based on one book written by someone,they've divided the Bengali Kayasthas as different sub-group here. Kayasthas are not divided based on province or states of India. Two types only: CKs and CKPs. Fullstop!

Now CKPs: How did the word Kayastha come into picture here if CKayasthPs trace their descent from Chandrasen from Haihaya Clan? Who was Chandrasen?

CKPs claim their origin from King chandrasen from Kashmir and were kings in kashmir during 7th and 9th century Karkota dynasty for e. g. Lalitaditya the greatest king of kashmir whose grand father Durlabhapida came ancient gandhara and CKPs were lords or high end ministers in the maratha empire in the 17th and 18th centuries e.g kanderao chitnis,baji prabhu deshpande .In Maharashtra and Gujarat ,CKPs are culturally similar to brahmin than kshatriyas.

The thread ceremony of CKPs which made them Kshatriya, otherwise,they would have been Shudra.

During Shivaji Maharaj's reign a CKP named Balaji Avji Chitnis demanded Thread ceremony for all CKP (who were Prabhu meaning godly) which other than brahmins were not allowed. But at that time in entire India only Kayastha was a community which was at power with brahmins but Kayastha were not Prabhus,so the name Chandraseniya Kshatriya Prabhu became Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. 

This is what most CKPs think as to why Kayastha word was added here. Right?

If this is true,then,you can clearly understand that if the word Kayastha wouldn't have been added here,then CKPs would've remained shudra. I hope that you'll respect this Kayastha word from now. This is what I know!

Different sub-groups have different origin in Panch-goud and panch-dravida Brahmins as well. The same goes for Rajputs. You think that in other castes or communities,they all have same origins??!

Now CKPs are Kshatriya! They've clear sources to back this. Still,their proximity with the Brahmin community is the same as CKs. You'll not find this proximity with Brahmins in any other Kshatriya community across India.

This is why I believe that Chandrasen was a Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha of Kashmir or Ayodhya(according to some historians)who might've migrated to Maharashtra and would've formed the CKP community. CKPs don't have Vedic origin like CKs,still,they can read and write in Vedas etc. This trait can only be seen in people coming in Brahmin varna.

The genes of CKPs are the same as Marathi Brahmins!

I hope that your thinking will change after this. Kayasthas are Kayasthas and CKPs are an integral part of the Kayastha community!

If you wanted the courts to give separate ruling for CKs and CKPs,then it's your thinking and not what most other Kayasthas would like. If even after reading this,your thinking is the same,then I don't know what to say here. CKs and CKPs are both Kayasthas! Don't let the outsiders play divide and rule. Bye. Dinopce (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kayasthas are not the only ones who might have mixed with other varnas. But saying that entire Kayastha caste was formed after mixing up of different varnas IS WRONG. We all know about Dasi-putra Rajputs. They're all Rajputs now! Contrary to what Brahmins think,they've also mixed with different varnas. Who started the DevDaasi concept? Who used to have relations with them(Devdasis)? Where are the children from such relations by Brahmins on Devdasis?? According to the law of Manu,they're all Brahmins(by taking the varna of their father and not of their shudra mother)!!

Read this to see mention of Dasiputra Brahmins(Brahmins born from maid(mostly shudra)). They're all Brahmins now. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4413229/

People are unnecessarily trying to victimize Kayasthas here.

Note: I don't have anything against the Brahmins and Rajputs. I just gave an example to relate. Dinopce (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dinopce, I did not know so many details. Yes, I think Kayastha page is little negative. But in best interest of Kayastha its best to not to fight with senior editors as they have a lot of power. Best to tell them nicely . I have seen that if they get too many edit wars then they get irritated. One question: What Gotra system do chitraguptavanshi kayasthas follow? How many Gotras do they have. DifferentialCalculus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I already knew it that you don't know most of the details. Your comment on 'some Kayasthas have high ritual status and how they're getting offended' made me understand that long ago.

Kashyap Gotra! Google search for detailed info about it.

I never fight with anyone unnecessarily! I believe in using the words confront instead of fight.

You've reinstated the same source in the 'varna status' of Kayastha page which Sitush removed unnecessarily. This is why I confronted him!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952244847

The following is the reason given by him in the above change.

"again, inappropriate - their designation changed over time & British categorisation was notoriously unstable, irrational and subject to social pressure. Why highlight the "glory" of 1931 status but not state in same para their lowly prior classification?

This is why I confronted him. I know about the WP:AGF but this seems like a negative and non-neutral edit.

Don't depend blindly upon anyone here. Don't become somebody's fan here unnecessarily.

One more thing: You recently removed the D.L Sheth director para citing that Sitush has already removed that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/955987264

It's not as straightforward as you think! You've yourself reinstated another of his edits in the 'Varna section' of the page. My advice to you is to stop taking sides here and don't remove edits by others on your own. Let the admins delete those edits if they think it's necessary!! Your knowledge is restricted to CKPs as far as I know.

There are several of his edits that I think were not necessary!

I don't believe in anyone blindly. That's the advice that I'd like to give you too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952144489

How does he know that these authors don't have relevant experience? ::According to me,H.Bellenoit doesn't have any relevant experience due to the amazon.in review that I showed you. ::Still,his book is being used here. Why?

Understand the politics before calling someone incompetent!!

I don't have any motive here. I'm only against people adding shudra and vaishya part while citing the books written by Bengali authors(anti-Kayastha ones) here.

The truth is that in that pdf of 1926 court ruling on Kayasthas,people have already negated the vaishya and Shudra part. You already have read the pdf so you know. I can't use that pdf as it's a primary source!

I hope that you'll understand my POV and will respect that. Don't remove something just because some admin/editor removed it(specially when you don't know the subject matter). If somebody will confront you,then what will you say? Sitush deleted it so,I too deleted it. Then that person confronting you can also say that you've also reinstated the things in the 'varna status section'!! Then,what will you say?

Be logical here!Dinopce (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952110938

What do you understand from the previous edit? Please explain!! Dinopce (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@dcalculus Dinopce (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My friend I am a well wisher. Trust me. If you aggravate Sitush, the page will become very negative. I am only doing the edits that Sitush made. Check the discussion on Nairs. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,You didn't answer my query. Please read again and answer my questions if it's not a problem.

Dinopce (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Differential calculas : I think you are a sockpuppet and want mudslinging among subgroups. If you are not, read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DifferentialCalculus#Discuss Ripudaman Srivastava (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sitush also made these changes!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952144489

You've reinstated this one. Why? Dinopce (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My above question is for@Differential calculus Dinopce (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am bored of editing Kayastha page as no one listens to what I am saying. Do what you want. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you. :) I just had problem with a few of your reverts! That's it. My friendly advice is to just leave the MODERATORS TO DECIDE WHICH SOURCES TO KEEP AND WHICH ONES TO NOT!!

Last but not the least. Be proud of all Kayasthas and not just your own sub-group. I hope you'll consider this request. Bye.:) Dinopce (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:DifferentialCalculus The book(H.Bellenoit:Formation of colonial state) has got good reviews in peer-reviewed journals! This is why this book is still here even though it's filled with the names of Raj Era Ethnographers.

Do let me know the answers to the questions I asked before, if possible!

If I'll get a list of such favourable sources that outnumber the unfavourable sources, then I might use the WP:Fringe if necessary.

Wikipedians don't know the difference btw Ambastha and Karan in Manu vs the sub-castes of Kayasthas. Even the historians don't know this unlike the religious authorities who know the difference! This is also a reason as to why they're mixing up shudra and vaishya varna with Kayasthas in their books,I think.

The court case pdf(1926) that I provided is primary sourceWP:Primary.So,I can't use it.

This is how people are misusing information given in books(which are in accordance with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia)here by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the admins!

If people will be able to find the points used in the court case1926 pdf as to why Kayasthas are not Vaishya and Shudra,in some book(scholarly work),then they can be used here,I think. Dinopce (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi differential calculus,

Are you planning to add the CKP notables from the CKP page to Kayastha page anytime soon?

I'd like you to,as the Kayastha page is for all i. Dinopce (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

sub-groups. Dinopce (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want me to,then I'll do it. I just thought about asking politely first. Dinopce (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem adding them. Let me know if you want me to. But adding too many of them will make the list too big. And there will be multiple copies on multiple pages. Is that ok? Otherwise we can also add a link to the notables on their respective sub-pages so we don't have to copy them all on the main page.

DifferentialCalculus (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC) DifferentialCalculus (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes,I'd like you to do the honours! ;)

A list is a list. There's no limit to it.

Just one thing:When you'll add those CKP notables from CKP to Kayasthapage,then simply mention that it's been 'copied from CKP page'.

Eg:Adding a few more notables from the CKPpage to this page as CKPs are also a sub-group of Kayasthas OR copied this from CKPpage as it's sub-group of Kayasthas.

If you'll mention the reason for copying,then nobody will bother you!

If you'll not mention the reason for copying a huge list of notables or any other statement from other Wikipedia pages to this page,then the Admins who don't have knowledge about the Kayastha topic might send you a message on your talk page like the following:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pandya101#March_2020_3

Read the last message by Iamnotyou in the above talk page to understand it!! Dinopce (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope my point is clear! Dinopce (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope that you've understood everything! Bye ;) Dinopce (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw that you made changes to the Kayastha page with the mention of copied from CKP page. Very nice! :) Dinopce (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Fylindfotberserk:Just wanted to let you know that along with my account. My ip address has also been blocked! No idea as to how Bishonen knows my ipaddress! Dinopce (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Admins/editors are involved! Dinopce (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know your IP address, Dinopce. It was blocked automatically along with your account. How do you know your IP address is blocked? Did you try to edit from it? That would be block evasion, which is not allowed. The block applies to the person — you yourself — not just to the account "Dinopce". If you edit from your IP, and/or create a sock account, it will be seriously disruptive and ensure that you're never unblocked. Just don't do it. Bishonen | tålk 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

I didn't try to create a sock account or anything. I was reading a page that didn't require making an account. Not all pages are locked. The edit icon(pen) was there. I clicked it and I got the msg. This is my only account. I don't have any other accounts. I don't have any intention of disruptive editing. Never had. Stop stalking my talk page! Dinopce (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Even my own talk page is giving me the same msg if I try to press the pen or edit icon without making an account. Dinopce (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dinopce - I thought I would bring our discussion over to your talk page!

I've traced back to figure out which of my edits you had written about. There is a link in the Kayastha article that is ambiguous - ie, it has more than one possible meanings. When I click the link upper caste, I cannot tell which one is the most correct one to use in the Kayastha article. Maybe it should be either scheduled caste or Forward Castes, but I don't know and maybe neither of these is appropriate. So, if you know which definition of "upper caste" is better in this context, please adjust the link so that it isn't ambiguous anymore.

I hope this helps, but if not, you know how to contact me!......PKT(alk) 15:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

3rd one. Upper caste means Forward caste!

Which link is ambiguous in the Kayasth article?

Show me the exact link!

Dinopce (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The link where you've written 'disambiguation needed' is correct! The link provided is of the word 'upper caste'.

'By a court decision in 1927 in Bihar,the Kayasthas came to be recognised as one of the upper castes'! Dinopce (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like editor Sitush has removed the link. It used to be near the beginning of the 'Varna status' section, "The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as a "upper caste"". PKT(alk) 11:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Dinopce (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As you must have noticed, the article and talkpage are constantly disrupted by sock-account and disruptive users, which makes it very difficult to conduct or follow a discussion. While you appear to be editing in good-faith, some of your own comments are also contributing to this problem. Here are some notes on how you can help raise the quality of discussion:

• Don't argue from personal knowledge/opinion.
• Similarly, arguing for a position based on (direct citation of) century old books or primary sources is a waste of everyone's time.
• Instead, cite modern secondary sources written by scholars (these in turn can analyze and summarize the primary sources).
• See WP:INDENT on how to properly indent talkpage comments. Help:Link on how to provide internal and external links. And, WP:TPG for other talkpage guidelines; in particular post all your comments related to one subject, in one section of the talkpage.

If you have any questions about these tips, you can ask me here or post at WP:TEAHOUSE. But keep the comments at Talk:Kayastha focused and succinct. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Entire article's meaning has been changed. I work somewhere. I don't think I've got the time to learn each and every rule here!

The article is negative. All this happened because of the Kayasth Brahmin part??

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/people/brahmins/list.htm https://archive.org/details/BrahmaKayasthaLalitaPrasadDattaBengali1909

The above are for reference.

Kayasth Brahmin and Brahm Kayastha are our alternate names. Kamats are also Brahmins.

Sitush has cherry-picked all the negative points and have quoted them in the varna section.

I know the socking part now. Somebody is a sock. But he wasn't the only one who would've added the different citations on this article.

Shudra couldn't read and write in Vedas(obvious;this doesn't require any reference). Swami Vivekananda had all the knowledge about scriptures.He introduced Hinduism in the Parliament of World Religions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda

Raja TodarMal translated the entire Bhagwat Puran from Sanskrit to Persian.

It's obvious. Only those things are to be challenged that is not obvious.

Sooner or later,somebody is going to complain about this to the officials or functionaries-en case by case.

I doubt that any historian is going to analyze and summarise the primary source pdf of court case.

You all can do what you want. If somebody is going to complain to the senior officials here case by case,then I'm not sure what is going to happen here.

I came here thinking that people are not aware of the court case but even though they're now, they aren't doing anything.

My edits are good faith edits. Entire article has been made an overview article based on what?

The other articles contain the D.L Seth reference.

Nagar brahmins social status section (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagar_Brahmin)

This hatred has got to stop!

Internal politics is going on here against Bengali Kayasthas and baidya which is evident now!

Dinopce (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda was a Kayastha from Bengal or a Bengali Kayastha. Dinopce (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also evident as to which castes are playing this politics against Bengali Kayasthas and vaidyas.

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=CqUcAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Vaidya

See the Kayasthas(Bengali) and vaidyas being added to the Brahmin entrepreneurs list in the above link.

I hope that all the admins on wikipedia are not in this together!

I was aware of the hatred but I didn't know that people(admins) are involved and are twisting the rules of Wikipedia to their advantage.

Discussion is not a solution to this hatred!

Senior editors or admins are involved in this!

I never wanted to waste somebody's time here if that's what you're implying.

My intention of joining wikipedia was to edit in those articles about which I had knowledge!

I can understand that wikipedia is for one lined statements.

Only a Brahmin varna can become a Vidwaan! It's obvious(known to everyone) and hence it doesn't require any clarification. You can't find sources about this this in any books! It's like whales are mammals. It's known to everyone. You don't need any sources to prove this.

Eg: You're a Brahmin. You're a Vidwaan. You're a Kayasth. You're a Vidwaan. This is what the people say.

Almost everyone knows this.

If somebody is denying from this,then it's evident to everyone as to what such people want.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YduyZu4rAl0C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Vyom+Samhita+kayastha&source=bl&ots=GTI5fV90Ju&sig=ACfU3U2IBuobOkLRx6h1m3X-WHa9oSFXxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj94MXihsfpAhXDmeYKHYxxCCQQ6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Vyom%20Samhita%20kayastha&f=false

This book says that Kayasthas had the write to read and write in Vedas and they could fight like warriors.

If anyone knows Hindi, confirm it or you can use Google translate.

It's in the 2nd line of the first page in the above link. Dinopce (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• right to read and write Dinopce (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dinopce, in your lengthy response you managed to ignore all the four bulleted points I listed above! Please go back and re-read carefully the advice offered by Bonadea, Bishonen and, most recently, me. If you continue to not listen or pay heed to wikipedia's content policies even when they have been spelled out in the simplest possible terms, you will be topic-banned from caste-related subject area or blocked altogether. Abecedare (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. You can't expect me to learn all the rules and regulations and respond accordingly.

Dinopce (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Corrective actions in process. Kayastha Samiti (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nNsXZkdHvXUC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=dasiputra+brahmin&source=bl&ots=pdKu7tcLjv&sig=ACfU3U02vthEf9l_zbAPVwr6f3AoJdKxgw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9uTB8MfpAhUIyDgGHX9_DgEQ6AEwCXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasiputra%20brahmin&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-5irrXX0apQC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=dasiputra+brahmin&source=bl&ots=z5oxZNovTv&sig=ACfU3U24FP3Sp5HM9khXcClkmDRNqb5gOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9uTB8MfpAhUIyDgGHX9_DgEQ6AEwCHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasiputra%20brahmin&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5xhBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT101&lpg=PT101&dq=dasi+putra+Brahmin&source=bl&ots=fvn818BpG8&sig=ACfU3U2X6W5Q3E6F3dE9HGtAOOEQmQ3p4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXmcCphsjpAhXV4zgGHReUAAIQ6AEwD3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasi%20putra%20Brahmin&f=false

Just wanted to let everybody know that Kayasthas were not the only ones who might have mixed with dasi or shudra women.

Wikipedia has been made a battleground of caste wars! Unnecessary vicitimization of Bengali kayasthas is not required.Dinopce (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Fylindfotberserk: Admins are involved! They want to spread hatred among communities. There's no caste in India which is not mixed!I'm being called a caste warrior uselessly. Dinopce (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Bonadea:Help. Dinopce (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Sitush. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. This is friendly advice, but you've been asked multiple times to not post on that talk page. See WP:NOBAN as to why. Your posts have been read: leave it out. ——Serial ^# 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the msg.

I've been asked just one time,not multiple times.

I want to discuss something with him.

I'm also an editor. What about my feelings?

I am just trying to interact with him.

Don't mean any harm to anyone.

If my posts have been read,then I also need an answer to that.

Why is he deleting my posts in btw my discussion?

People are free to remove the sections after the discussion.

I just want to chat in a friendly manner. That's it.

I want some answer to that post. Please don't remove it in btw the discussion.Dinopce (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Serial Number 54129, I've been banned indefinitely! Even though I didn't revert Sitush's or your edits here. Can't understand why?

Pls get me unblocked. I've not committed any sin. This can lead to caste clashes in Bengal. Dinopce (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark:When I received this message from Serial Number 54129,I didn't revert his reverts! I've been blocked indefinitely for this? Indefinitely? My first block and that too indefinitely?? Dinopce (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You have persistently acted like a caste warrior and assumed bad faith of any admins and experienced users who have tried to advise you. The last straw is the way you have continued to pester Sitush after he asked you to stop posting on his page. I have blocked you indefinitely as not being here to build a neutral encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

@BishonenThanks for blocking me indefinitely.When Sitush told me not to write on his talk page.I just pinged him the last time and reverted Regents park's reverts. After that Serial no.54129 posted a msg in the section above. I've not reinstated anything on his talkpage again. Still you blocked me and that too indefinitely??

Caste Warrior is not the right term for me but for others. Caste propaganda is being played here.

Since my 1st day,I've been polite to everyone here.

@User:Fylindfotberserk:Blocked. Dinopce (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Wanted to discuss. Blocked indefinitely the first time itself. Why? Kayastha article has gone negative. Dinopce (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Was blocked unnecessarily Dinopce (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• This and this above look like attempts to request unblock. I'm not sure what to do since there are two of them, but I've put the text of both of them into an unblock template for you just below. That means an uninvolved admin will come here and assess your request. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinopce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Wanted to discuss. Blocked indefinitely the first time itself. Why? Kayastha article has gone negative. Was blocked unnecessarily.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. The below conversation has not filled me with confidence. I see no realization of wrongdoing, and continued battleground mentality, combined with a poor grasp of English. You are still trying to defend your positions on castes, we see plenty of caste warriors and do not need more. If you were to be unblocked, you would probably be given a topic ban on caste issues, your next unblock request should address what you might edit instead of castes. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It'll be useless. Wikipedia is not a reliable site. Internal politics is happening here. Admins are involved! It's evident.

Dinopce (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed the sockpuppet commentary here and blocked the sock. If there's any more of the same, I'll semiprotect this page. That would not stop you yourself from posting on it, Dinopce. I say that in case you want to request unblock. Did you notice I told you about requesting unblock in my block notice? If you don't do that, and simply continue to attack users on this page, I will, however, remove your access to editing it. Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

I can't understand why I was blocked. I didn't write again on Sitush's talk page.

I was told not to do so by Serial number above.So,I didn't.

Please explain Dinopce (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sitush told you here not to post on his talk page. You posted this after that. I reverted you with a clear edit summary saying that you should not post on Sitush's talk page. You reverted me anyway. That's why you're blocked. Please use this page ONLY to post unblock notices or you will lose talk page access. --regentspark (comment) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was blocked INDEFINITELY FOR THIS? INDEFINITELY?!!! Dinopce (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I explained the reason while reverting. In the middle of the talk. I didn't abuse anyone. I've been polite to everyone here since the beginning! Dinopce (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was in the middle of talk with him. I thought he was not serious! How will I know that it's a crime? Dinopce (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you actually thought that what you did was ok and not rude, and that Sitush was "not serious", it kind of confirms that you don't understand how to edit collaboratively. You don't need to understand anything about Wikipedia to know that it is rude to badger a person after they have explicitly asked you not to. You pinged me asking for help; the most helpful thing I can think of here is to advise you to forget about Wikipedia, since it appears to be very difficult for you to grasp some of the most basic concepts after multiple explanations from multiple people. Your trying to come across as a new editor earlier today will not work – even a new editor is expected to take advice on board, and to make an attempt to understand what is explained to them. People do get tired of explaining the exact same policies and guidelines over and over, especially when the explanations are ignored without even an attempt to take them on board. (Examples of things that I, personally, have said more than once, and which you have gone on to ignore, include "Don't harass other editors", "Don't ever speculate in the caste/ethnicity of other editors", "Reviews at amazon.com can't be used to determine whether a source is reliable", and "Do not cherry-pick sources that indicate what you believe to be the case, while ignoring other sources that contradict it".) Don't worry – Wikipedia is not the ideal hobby for everyone. Best of luck with whatever else you decide to spend your time on. --bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Bishonen:No need to semi-protect my page. Vandalism can't take place here! I don't want you to protect my page!! Dinopce (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's impossible to reply when you keep posting those little bits. No, you weren't blocked just for that — it was merely the last straw. I explained why you were blocked in my block notice. You say you've "been polite to everyone". This after accusing your opponents of "hatred" and admins of working against Bengali Kayasthas, seriously? Do you think you're "polite" as long as you don't use curse words? Suspiciousness and assumptions of bad faith are far worse than bad words, because they make you impossible to reason with, and make you uninterested in our rules. Admins and senior editors have gone out of their way to advise you, but to no avail. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

I was talking to Sitush in a civil manner. Opponents?

Nobody is my opponent here.

Learning takes time. It's different for everyone. You or anyone can't expect me to understand everything immediately.

Learning at my own speed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

You can't expect me to learn everything in 3 months.

Indefinite block is not for such minor mistakes!

I was blocked first. Suspicion has occurred because of massive citations deletion by Sitush.

No caste in India is not mixed. India has been a place of frequent invasions since several centuries.

Clashes can happen in Bengal due to this.

Just because nobody will blame Wikipedia because of the WP:rules doesn't mean that people are not watching this.

I'm not a caste warrior. :You've blocked me INDEFINITELY FOR THIS? INDEFINITELY? Dinopce (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Bonadea: I never harassed anyone. I used to write the same comment of somebody's on mine which is why you thought that I'm harassing someone. I don't harass anyone online or even in real life.

Sitush told me just once to stop writing on his talkpage. I thought that he's not serious.

I don't deserve to be banned permanently for such a reason.

Learning takes time. It's different from different people. I'm from average school with average English. It takes me googling to understand the difficult words in these WP:?

Dinopce (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:BonadeaI am learning at my own speed. Learning takes time.

Once Serial Number asked me not to,I didn't revert his(Sitush's) talk page.

I've clearly mentioned to Bonadea that in case I missed any point about Primary and secondary source,I'll re-read them. I wasn't able to understand your point because it was my first time.

I was learning!

Indefinite blockage and that too the first time itself?

Dinopce (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you are either choosing not to pay attention to the information given to you, or else incapable of understanding it, it seems clear that English Wikipedia is just not a good fit for you. I'm not going to address the multiple incorrect statements in your post because it would just be a waste of time. Again, not editing English Wikipedia is no big deal (or shouldn't be) because there are a million other things to do in the world – including a number of Wikipedia versions that are not in English. As you will hopefully remember, using Google to translate for you is another thing I have strongly cautioned you about, and if you are actually using Google to look up words you don't understand, it is no wonder it's hard for you to communicate. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I said difficult words. Not all words. I'm not a linguist like you. Stop being prudent. Dinopce (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)