User talk:Nittawinoda

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Nittawinoda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Venkateswara

I undid your addition of Vengadam to Venkateswara as it was unsourced. The source mentions Venkata, but not Vengadam.
Per wp:verifiability, any significant content must wp:cite a wp:reliable source (RS). See help:referencing for beginners. Use of one's own knowledge is not verifiable, and must not be used. See wp:no original research. As most anyone can edit Wikipedia, the only path to credibility is through citations. Please help keep articles well-cited so they don't become trash articles. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Overlink

Don't link common words such as nation / nationality. See above link. --RHcosm (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Talk:Kulottunga I/GA1

The review has been started up again by the reviewer; you will want to see what they added, and respond to it. (You were pinged, but under your old account name, so I've posted here to let you know about it.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the heads-up. I've added the Review page to my watchlist. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nittawinoda. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Muthuraja

Muthuraja or Mutharaiyar are Tamil Caste around Trichy Region TamilNadu.Cannot confuse Mudiraj.Mudiraj is a Telugu caste around Telangana. Not relation between Muthurja and Mudiraj.Muthuraja is a King of Mutharaiyar Dynastry AD600 to AD1000.But Mudiraj main occupation is fishing.So cannot merge to Mudiraj and Muthuraja. And Paluvattaraiyar is Not a kerala this is a Ariyalur District TamilNadu so cannot remove the Paluvettaraiyar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkalaiarasan86 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jkalaiarasan86:, you need to provide sources to show that Muthuraja are same as Paluvettaraiyar or the relation if any between the two commmunities. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, so your personal beliefs do not matter here. Please see WP:VERIFY. So until you come up with references, the Paluvettaraiyar section will continued to be challenged and removed. According to the Anbil plates of Sundara Chola, the Paluvettaraiyar originated from Kerala. Please refer source [1]. Now it is your turn to come up with references. Nittawinoda (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghunatha Kilavan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sati (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) 09:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thirumangai alvar

@Nittawinoda: thirumangai alvar is Kallar right.But not a Kallar caste. cannot confuse Kallar(Thief) and Kallar caste.He was stolen by his intention to serve his devotees.ok but thirumangai alvar caste is Mutharaiyar --Jkalaiarasan86 (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jkalaiarasan86: Source for "Kallar caste" [2]. So maintain neutral version. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Udaiyar

Why do you mess up a lot of articles and the caste 106.203.29.94 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful

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.

- Sitush (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Vanniyar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• If you revert again any time soon at Vanniyar you will be in big trouble, although frankly you already should be given the alert above and you clear unwillingness to follow a host of policies, guidelines and common practises, eg: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD and WP:NPA. Sitush (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by an arbitration decision

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 recently 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.

Template:Z33 Per your recent edits to Vanniyar. Usually there is no trouble if you are patient enough to wait for consensus first. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: - Hello Admin, Sitush (talk · contribs) and his cronies are pushing their POV on article Vanniyar. Sitush has simply removed all my edits to the article terming it as caste glorification. Sitush is all ok for accepting sources that favor his POV while he terms my sources as unreliable when the sources present a view contrary to his opinion.Recently I added a view as stated by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert but then he termed as unreliable supposedly because it belongs to the colonial period. On the other hand he is ok with adding material by various historians who based their views on events that transpired during the colonial era if they agree with his view point. The general modus operandi of Sitush seems to be forcing an edit war where he forces other user to revert an article back and forth and then immediately goes and tattletales to some admin regarding the edit war. What kind of spirit is Wikipedia promoting? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sitush is very familiar with the sourcing issues on caste articles and his recommendations are often respected by administrators. Gustav Solomon Oppert did most of his work in the nineteenth century, and that sometimes is flagged as an issue for caste articles. If you think that Oppert's work has modern scholarly credibility and want to appeal you could consider the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanniyar

However looking at your edit, it seems to me it is a tad non sequitish, what does this add to the article we need to know?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also comment on content not user motivations, raising POV does your cause no good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Dr. Oppert's view lends credence to the opinion that the Pallis(aka Vanniyar) are the Pallavas. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See if you can find a copy of Untouchability: A Historical Study Upto 1500 A.D. : with Special Reference to Tamil Nadu, it has this "higher class Pallavas who accepted Cola sovereignty and joined the ranks of the Cola army came to be designated as Pallis".Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This [[3]] covers it quite well, it is certainly a claim they have made, and I think can be added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first example is WP:OR with regard to the actual article; your second is not reliable. It really isn't helpful spreading this stuff all over umpteen forums. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So it does not say that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Nittawinoda. I have answered your question on my talkpage, but I'd probably better post the warning part of it here as well, to make sure you see it. I'm sorry to say your argument shows a depth of incomprehension. If you continue to edit the article based on such stuff, you will soon find yourself banned or blocked. Please listen better when experienced editors such as Sitush try to explain Wikipedia's rules and principles to you. Stop using offensive, bad-faith-assuming edit summaries, and stop accusing good-faith editors of vandalism or talking about "cronies" (without the slightest evidence) and nonsense like that. Have a read of our no personal attacks and civility policies. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: - you need to stop throwing your weight around and review my edit to the Vanniyar that started the edit-war. Atleast one other editor Slatersteven (talk · contribs) thinks that the source is good enough to be used as a reference here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gustav_Solomon_Oppert_work_a_reliable_source_?. The quantity of edits does not make someone a good contributor and I've seen enough edits of Sitush (talk · contribs) to know that he is pushing a POV. If you continue to harass me or threaten me with a block, I will have to take this issue to higher authorities as you seem to be in collusion with Sitush (talk · contribs). The modus operandi clearly seems to be Sitush forcing the opponent to revert an article back and forth and then asking for your help to block or ban the editor and then you stepping in under the pretext of restoring normalcy by blocking the opponent. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. you are mistaken in your pattern recognition. Why, so far today alone, based on my reports and comments, TonyBallioni has blocked about five accounts, JJMC89 has blocked one, and Ymblanter has put protection measures in place on an article. I also think you misunderstand the position of Slatersteven on the article talk page, the associated WP:RSN thread and above: you and he alone are not going to overturn a longstanding consensus regarding Raj era sources.

You are correct that I do often turn to Bishonen's talk page. However, that is because we do not at present have many administrators who are prepared to assist with the Indic area - Abecedare, SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark, for example, are all on breaks - and posting at Bishonen's page, or that of someone such as Drmies, is handy because they have many watchers and thus it is almost like an informal noticeboard. I'm not sure if EdJohnston's comments on this current matter were sparked by events there but it is certainly possible.

If you still think that there is some sort of unpleasant and unhealthy team-work going on then I suggest you file a report at WP:ANI. But please read WP:BOOMERANG first. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you think he misunderstands about my position?Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous account

Hi, was Nittavinoda (talk · contribs) also your account? - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nittawinoda has stated it on their userpage. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC).

Ah, thanks. Missed that. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as advertised. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reg. Collaboration

Hi Niitawinoda,

Could you please send your email id, thanks for your contribution for Vanniyar Page, i want to discuss few more things with you.

Surya

Welcome @Suryavarman01: - I noticed a comment by admin Bishonen (talk · contribs) on your talk page about collaborating outside of Wikipedia, something about WP:MEAT, check [4]. I am still unclear about this policy and how wikipedia perceives offline collaboration. So let us interact here for now. I would also appreciate your opinion on the issues being discussed in Vanniyar talk. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me in this context, Nittawinoda. The invitation from 2014 that you saw on User talk:Suryavarman01 to discuss privately how to "handle" opponents was a pretty clear attempt at conspiracy and meatpuppetry, and therefore I warned User:MeNaagesh about it. I'm not sure what Suryavarman01's intentions are here, but the combination of a request for your e-mail, with a mention of your edits on Vanniyar and especially with the word "collaboration" in the header, looks a little worrying. That said, there is no prohibition against users e-mailing each other. If you wish, you can register your e-mail in your Preferences, under "User profile". I see Suryavarman01 has already done so, since the link "Email this user" appears in the left-hand sidebar on his page, under "Tools". (You probably can't see it, since your own e-mail isn't enabled.) If you enable it, you will be able to e-mail with other users without putting your e-mail address out in public, which is never a good idea. Please be aware, though, that it's better to disuss content issues in public on Wikipedia, frankly and transparently. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

say who it is by not who they quote

If a source is by X, but the quote Y the source is X, not Y. If a source surmised or extrapolates from Y it is still by X. Your edit here [[5]] can be said to be misrepresenting the sources as you claim it is by Hiltebeitel when it is not, it summarizes him.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your contribution, hope you did lot of research in caste and culture of Tamil Nadu, but I am seeing lot of your changes are reverted so trying to understand what went wrong in your addition, why it was removed ? →§  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 

Thanks Suryavarman01 (talk · contribs). Supposedly the Vanniyars of medieval period are different from the modern Vanniyar caste. The other editor claims that the Pallis renamed themselves as Vanniyar in order to appropriate the latter's history. The other reason is because references from the British Colonial period are supposedly not valid. These were the reasons given by the other editor. I personally feel that my edits were removed because some people cannot stand the glorification of a caste that they don't belong to so they come up with incredible reasons such as these. I also got the drift that there are a few other editors hanging around who are bent upon adding negative content to the article with the intention of showing the Vanniyars in a bad light. I was also surprised that in spite of the high number of viewers very few came forward and voiced their dissent against adding negative info. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point. "Adding negative info" is not necessarily wrong. Wikipedia is not censored and should strive to cover all aspects of a subject, including aspects that may be unattractive in the eyes of some people. It is no better to add only positive information as to add only negative - the idea is that we should reflect what reliable sources say and both say and present it in as neutral a manner as possible. Sometimes the issue of weight arises, and that can be a tricky thing to understand for people new to the project, but in any event, in my experience, that is mostly applied to biographies of living people. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

conflating issues

It is not helpful to make talk page posts that discus different issues. A source not supporting X is not the same as a source being rejected. It just confuses the issue and leads to deviations. Please try and stick to one issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore that ^^. You are confused for a variety of reasons but the movement in the thread from etymology to what the Maravars were known for was an entirely logical process for anyone with half a brain, based on my opening comment there. I asked why something was removed, gave my thoughts as to several different reasons, and you responded accordingly. It was fine. If someone can't follow the movement in such a short thread, they shouldn't be getting involved in discussions. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

OK if you think all of what he said was on topic I am fine with that. So Nittawinoda ignore what I said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Maravar

Did you actually read the sources? - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that this topic ban now appeals to you

For your long-term disregard of sources on pages related to caste and social groups, I have decided, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the terms of this community discussion, to impose the following sanction on you:

You have been indefinitely banned from making any edits to pages related to caste and social groups. I'm afraid I've had enough of your long-term disregard of sources, Nittawinoda, as for instance here, where the ridiculous edit summary ("do you even know when the medieval period is?") strongly suggests that you're prepared to keep it up indefinitely and have little respect for other editors. Please look up WP:TBAN for a clear explanation of what a topic ban is; it means you're banned from the topic on all pages: not just articles but also talkpages and user talkpages, discussion boards, etc. You are free to edit the rest of Wikipedia.

This sanction has been logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction to the community at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me on my talk page, before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. If you appeal and the appeal is declined, you may not appeal again until six months have passed. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 10:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of AN to appeal your topic ban is permitted. Abuse of that space to launch more attacks on other editors is not. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked by Acroterion (talk · contribs) while I've been trying to appeal my topic ban here [6]. Acroterion wrongly accuses me of attacking other editors while I've merely been stating my side of the story in noticeboard. This amounts to silencing me as I have posted some valid diffs that proves collusion between admin Bishonen and user Sitush. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Requests that discuss the behavior of others are not considered. Even leaving that aside, your recent comments were indeed personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (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.

Any appeal must be about what you did, not what the other boys did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Pallava origins

Dear Nittawinoda,

I am supposing you have perused my arguments. If you indeed have, then what's your opinion on the same? Do you find them convincing? Have I laid out all the requisite facts? I'd be grateful if you also point out the flaws in it, except for certain gratuitously rhetorical comments that I'd made, which I'd beseech you to overlook.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27:, I have replied on the Pallava talk page. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nittawinoda,

This is with regards to the recent exchanges that have taken place on the talk page. I request you to not tag anyone, and this is in good faith. Doesn't the lexicon used by RVin341 and LovSLif seem uncannily similar?

Destroyer27 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Pallava dynasty

Please take a look at the note I left LovSLif since some of it would be useful for you too. For you, I would particularly emphasize sticking with high quality sources and not starting new discussions/sections while a topic is still being discussed. Abecedare (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: duly noted. FYI, I quoted from some of the same sources which are used in the recent versions of the article Pallava dynasty. For example, I quoted a source by a author called K.R Subramanian. But moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) has labelled that as unreliable [7]. Accordingly I have removed it from the article page. Similarly, I had quoted from Gabriel-Jouveau Dubreil elsewhere and Kautilya3 labelled it as very old. Now, this source is also used in the article but I am unclear whether it is passable or if it should be binned. Nittawinoda (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Older sources, such as Jouveau-Dubreuil, are best avoided and supplanted by more recent high-quality sources as far as possible. Sometimes it is useful to present older pioneering work in an area in a historiographic-context to explain to the reader how ideas about the subject's history evolved over time (for example, discussing James Tod work on the people of Rajasthan, or Max Müller's work on Sanskrit texts) although this too needs to be based upon how WP:HISTRS-compliant sources treat the subject and those older sources. See also the second para of the note I had left LovSLif earlier. I haven't taken a deep enough look at the Pallava dynasty sources to say off-hand if this applies to Jouveau-Dubreuil but Kautilya3 is an old-hand at these matters and should be able to provide more particular and nuanced guidance. Of course, you don't have have to accept their word in every case, and if you have serious concerns you can raise questions about a particular source at WP:RSN. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Abe. Nittawinoda, note that K. R. Subramanian is from the same Raj era and I have mentioned it when the other editor presented it as a source.

On another note, I would appreciate if you can stop needling the other editor by raising issues about "Telugu". You know very well that Telugu wasn't used for historical records in that period. If you didn't know, you are welcome to check the Telugu language page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Abecedare:, As mentioned above [8], I removed K.R Subramanian after moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) labelled it as unreliable [9]. Now the other user has reverted my changes and reinserted this unreliable source [10]. What is your take on this behavior? Nittawinoda (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nittawinoda, it is best not to edit the disputed content while the discussion is ongoing. Moreover, I should note that you have selectively deleted one source, while other Raj-era sources and non-HISTRS are still present in the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tirupati

Hi Nittawinoda, I have undid the changes you made on Ancient history regarding Tondaman in Tirupati page. It is legend that Tondaman built that temple as per any RS and is not history. The content on Tondaman is already added under Legend of Tirumala. Since you have better knowledge on this, I need your help in improving Legend of Tirumala page with more references. aggi007(talk) 06:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aggi007: It is okay as I added this info about Tondaiman building the first structure for Vishnu because another editor had added that it was a buddhist temple [11] originally. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

By LovSLif (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dummy edits

Could you explain your edits on 1000s BC (decade), 18th century BC, and 28th century BC. I see no actual change in display. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So, why did you do them, and is there any reason I shouldn't summarily revert them? See Help:Dummy edit for essentially the only reasons such edits should be done, although whitespace-changing edits may be done in conjunction with other edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (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) 08:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban commuted to indefinite 1RR restriction for caste edits

Hi, Nittawinoda. The people who commented on your topic ban appeal here all liked the way you have adhered to the ban, and have constructively edited other areas. Therefore, your topic ban from pages related to caste and social groups has been commuted to an indefinite WP:1RR restriction for all edits related to caste and social groups. Please note that this restriction applies not just to caste pages, but to any edits you make that have to do with caste and/or social groups. If you're in doubt, please ask (for example me or Vanamonde) before reverting. Self-reverts and reverts of obvious vandalism are exempted from the restriction. Obvious vandalism means edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. When in doubt, do not revert. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC).