User talk:Sitush

Jag är Ikea. This user stands with Sweden. Je suis Ikea.

... or panic madly and freak out?

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

It's funny...

It's funny the way the caste warriors tend to stop cold after a sharp warning: they don't argue, they just stop editing.[1][2] Did they use to do that? Anyway, to me, that suggests they find creating new accounts easier than defending the old. As indeed it is. 😕 Bishonen | talk 19:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC).

It does seem that way. I am going through one of my phases of being very disillusioned with it all and with the more experienced people who knowingly or otherwise facilitate it. In fact, I'm becoming rather disillusioned altogether - see comments about categories above, which is an area where I get fed up of seeing the same names fiddling around with the same material over and over again, for ever refining, refining without really understanding the subject matter and often seemingly without even reading the article (just like the caste warriors). Waiting for another set of biopsy results probably hasn't improved my mood. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that( about the biopsy). Hope all is well. Best wishes. Acharya63 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wire removals

Hi Sitush. Your removals of The Wire as a source are now being cited by one of our old friends as a reason for removing that source elsewhere. I have no issues with those specific removals, as I can see plenty of reasons why it isn't an appropriate source in that circumstance, but given that the organization itself is run by an ex-editor of The Hindu, which both you and I probably agree is one of the better newspapers, I wonder if you'd care to expand on your rationale, just so I'm sure you're not being misunderstood. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It was mostly scraping from other news sites, some of dubious reliability. I think scroll.in does the same. I'm fairly sure SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark have said something similar in the past but, of course, if The Wire is publishing stuff from PTI then that would be ok, and since they're mostly scraping it should be possible to find an alternate source if it really matters. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

scroll.in is a different story; as I understand it, they primarily post user-submitted content, whereas the Wire is based mostly on its own staff (and opinion pieces/user-submitted stuff is marked as such). Its editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, was previously the editor of The Hindu; which is primarily why I would consider it reliable. @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: do you know anything to the contrary? Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Of course, any source can be reliable for some stuff and not for other stuff. We even use Raj ethnographers in a limited way, for example. There is a simpler way to look at this particular issue, though. Basically, if Capankajsmilyo approves of a source then it is useless, and vice versa. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Raj Darbhanga

Hi Sitush. Could you please take a look at Raj Darbhanga page? Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jakichandan: sorry for the late response. You appear to have dealt with the disruption. Please note that centered should be spelled centred, per WP:MOSTIES. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kantha vibhag

Hi Sitush. Could you please take a look at Kantha vibhag page? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It is at AfD now and I have commented there. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to say thanks for all the great work you do on Wikipedia. Hopefully see you at the India Noticeboard soon, I think people are getting bored of me replying to things. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think people get bored of seeing me replying to things also. And I know for sure that I am becoming fed up of dealing with the crap, much of which resembles Groundhog Day. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CASTE

Hey Sitush, I am not sure if you will be able to answer this but I had a question on WP:CASTE and noticed you were one of the editors involved in the community discussions on it. From my understanding of this, we do not explicitly mention caste or social groups of individuals on their biographical pages. Is this valid only for WP:BLP or extensible to all biographical pages. Another related question is how is a caste/social group defined as in terms of Wikipedia. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a tricky area. For living people, we certainly do not mention it unless there is a source showing that they self-identify. More generally, I take the view that unless their caste is relevant to their notability then it really has no bearing. To take an extreme analogy of "tribal" insignificance, imagine us mentioning that someone was a supporter of, say, Manchester United football club but whose notability has nothing to do with football - it amounts to trivia. However, I don't think there is consensus on this issue.

Regarding the definition of caste/social group, well, I think it is usually obvious when one sees it. Can you give me an example where it may be troubling you? - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, As far as wikipedia rules are concerned, I understand we do allow caste mention for dead notables. In India, caste is almost like race and it helps identify the background. So I respectfully disagree with the football analogy. For example, we mention castes of almost all dead politicians , when it has absolutely no bearing on their notability. For example, Ambedkar's notability is certainly from his caste. But the castes of Bal Thackeray, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi have absolutely no bearing on their notability. So why mention it for some and prohibit it for others? Basically, I think it is not prohibited - is that correct?Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that you think differently to me. I did say that not everyone agrees with me. It doesn't alter the fact that (a) it is usually irrelevant to anything they did; and (b) that some articles do mention it is not a reason for more articles to mention it. I don't think many people would disagree with me in thinking that caste is an abomination in modern society and that perpetuating unnecessary references to it is not usually A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. But would it be fair to keep it for some and not others - how do we decide? Why not just follow one rule for all to avoid edit wars and in the interest for fairness? Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia is that consensus can change and also that bold edits mean that consensus may not even exist in the early iterations of any particular aspect of an article or topic area. We also have no deadline, including in relation to "fixing" articles that may deviate from current consensus. Thus, there are always likely to be anomalies and especially so in areas which are under-patrolled or regarding which experienced contributors have poor understanding. It is not really about fairness but rather about what is or is not encyclopaedic. Certainly, there are some situations where a person's caste is relevant, as I said above, but in most cases it is nothing more than trivia/fancruft etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly - it is not prohibited by wikipedia - although it might be trivia in 99% cases - to add it(in general ). Here is how I look at it(advantage): If I am doing research on a community like the Chitpawan for example, and writing an article on them, I will search wikipedia for the word "Chitpawan" to get a list of all people this community produced (assuming some names have been missed in the caste list). Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there is an emerging consensus that it is usually unnecessary but that the consensus is not yet firm. I also think that your rationale for inclusion (to enable production of lists) is somewhat circular: if the thing is trivia then their inclusion in the list would be trivial, too. Indeed, most of the lists are little more than puff pieces and they consume an inordinate amount of maintenance effort. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

On which page are such issues discussed ? Please can you point me to them so I can take part in them? I think some western editors ( not generalizing) are missing the fact that caste is relevant in India - even today. Newspapers in India mention it(caste of notables). Interracial marriages in US are more common than inter-caste marriages in India. Caste is part of a family background as it tells how a person was brought up. It is like an extended family. For example: I have lived in America but do not want to separate from the Deshastha background although I do not associate with any Deshastha groups, forums etc (I am not even aware if they exist). My white friends will not identify as "anglo-saxon" etc. but Indians will still identify as "Iyers" etc. Removing such information from wikipedia (and not following one rule for all articles) will surely damage wikipedia fairness and credibility on India articles in my humble opinion. As well as usefulness. And people will start moving to private caste blogs looking for information. In any case, you are a high level editor - I am a low level editor - so your opinion counts. To be specific the cases as to why this issue came up - Ratan Tata, Arun Shridhar Vaidya, Bal_Thackeray. I think we should have caste mentions on all three as it is part of their family background. Only the last one has a caste mention - which is not fair in my opinion. The last guy was a hated politician (by many) and his caste had nothing to do with his politics. The second guy is a war hero. They both belong to the same community. I don't think we should selectively choose to mention caste of one and not the other. The Parsi heritage of Tata should also be mentioned IMHO. Acharya63 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trawling for examples of past discussions, sorry. I've been here a long time and there have been several of them over that time. As I said, it isn't a firm consensus yet anyway and so there would need to be another discussion. I take your point that some Indian people place great store by caste but if it isn't relevant then it isn't encyclopaedic, period. We are not a collection of random facts and it is worth bearing in mind that a lot of Indians (although perhaps not the majority) actually try to hide their caste, especially in the south. I can accept that the occupational background of a person's parents might have some bearing but caste goes far beyond that and, as I am sure you have seen, mentions of caste are frequently abused here. It is easier, safer, less disruptive and usually no less encyclopaedic simply to omit it. - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sitush I am in the same boat as you in this one. We have had a lot of disruption (especially from experience in Indian military biographical profiles) with people pushing one caste over the other. What prompted me asking this question was the recent edits on Arun Shridhar Vaidya by Acharya63 which place him in a particular caste. I am yet to ascertain how this is helpful in adding information about him than trivia and will only lead to more issues later on (this is based on my experience prior to WP:INDICSCRIPTS with languages). I think one should be added if indeed there is show by an editor that the caste of a person has direct bearing on a biographical article. Another similar case is that of Ratan Tata and him being a Parsi. Now strictly speaking Parsi is not a caste but a social group, which in my mind, is synonymous to being a Punjabi or a Bengali. But in this case, I don't understand how does this have direct bearing on his biographical article. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

TO Adamgerber80 : You win in the Arun Shridhar Vaidya and the Ratan Tata case. I lose. Let us deny the Parsis to feel proud of their notables. Please know that my objection is more to the unfairness and I would not have any objection if we were following the same rule for all articles. But the issue here is selective judgement - is my communication skill so bad that no one is able to see it? Unless a community is practicing fairness the morale of the members goes down - that is true not only in real life but also on wikipedia. So the way I look at it - we are keeping caste for a marathi hindu politician who has been called a hindu terrorist by some (and used as a tool to hate marathi hindus and marathi brahmins also (because he was a so called high caste) - all over the world - not to mention his super tiny community of a few hundred thousand that can be easily identified by last names) but not a marathi hindu war hero(vaidya) from the exactly the same community who was assassinated by terrorists. Sounds very fair. I predict that editors(such as myself) who believe in perfect non-partiality and neutrality - will get disgusted by this unfairness - stop editing eventually and wikipedia India section will be irrelevant in a few years - due to unfairness and random policies across articles ( even animals hate unfairness - never mind humans). People will start referring to other websites including blogs. There should have been a simple answer like "yes it is allowed although it is trivia" or "NOT not allowed on any article unless it is directly relevant so delete it from all Politicans and actor webpages. No selectivity". BTW, caste is encyclopedic nature in India -it tells a lot about the family background - some people, especially non-Indians just don't get it. Govt of India recognizes caste for reservation. It is not like your sun sign or gotra which is trivia and irrelevant. Most people come up in life simply because they belong to a caste - that is why in Raj times you see a large proportion of "high caste" intellectuals as notables but not of the lower castes. Also different castes belong to different races is a fact - they even look different - but maybe my communication skills are bad and I am not able to explain it well. A sense of justice has to prevail in wikipedia and I am sorry that I don't see it here. This is not an argument(as I have already accepted defeat) just a dump of my thoughts. Sitush, I honestly admire your editing skills and your command over English. Also, my sincere prayers and good wishes for your recovery(you mentioned something about a biopsy). So to sum up - Adamgerber80, the verdict is that we leave out caste for Vaidya and Tata. I will end the discussion about this on my side although I strongly disagree with the verdict and I am afraid we are setting a bad precedent with this ambiguous and unfair decision. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As I have said above, fairness does not come into it. You are thinking that Wikipedia is a perfect environment and I'm afraid it is not. There are all sorts of anomalies across all sorts of articles, and that will continue because we have over 5 million articles to maintain but a relatively small number of active contributors. Equally, if it can be shown that a person's caste is directly relevant to what they do/did etc then, again as I've said above, it is likely to be encyclopaedic. But without a direct relevance, it is not. The same applies to religion etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did say that my previous reply was final but felt compelled to add why I felt strongly about this. This(your comment) is very subjective and will result in edit wars, I am afraid. More importantly, caste mentions are already common all over. For example, if someone tries to remove Mahatma Gandhi's Gujarati Bania heritage - the Gujarati people -irrespective of caste- are doing to react. And the removers simply have to point to this discussion. Senior editors should make things easier for new comers not confuse them further so that they run away. Unfairness is confusing and demoralizing and you have the power to minimize it on Wikipedia - I don't. Adamgerber80's persistent reverts of harmless information were unnecessary and counterproductive. 99% percent of caste on wikipedia mentions are not relevant to the notability - so there was no need to crucify these two notables in particular. No one had objected so far. The only exceptions are Ambedkar , Phule etc where caste is relevant to notability. But there is no point reverting harmless one word information - even if considered trivia by some - maybe others consider it important. I agree with you that currently there is no fairness on wikipedia India articles and it is quite demoralizing to hear that from you. This will also be a weapon used to demonize communities by simply keeping the caste information for bad people and removing it for good people from that caste. Both (Tata, Vaidya) were born before independence and hence had they been from low castes they would have most probably gone nowhere. Given that caste mentions are very common on wikipedia even for modern actresses like Madhuri Dixit, I think a fair verdict would have been to allow it for these two. Very disappointing. As I said, this will result in wikipedia India being less important. We can discuss this 10 years from now and I will show I was right when the number of hits on wikipedia India articles continue to decrease as competitors pop up. Because it is a fact that people do search for castes of notables. There was some news article about this mentality too - I am not saying it is right- just that it is a fact. Adamgerber80 selectively disassociated two people from their communities although there are rampant caste mentions of dancers and actresses on wiki where caste has almost nothing to do with their notability. Even pornstars - see Sunny Leone where their caste/religion is mentioned. Also, there are Caucasian (white) notables where their partial German, partial English, etc. heritage is mentioned - which is completely irrelevant but no one objects to it. I need a break for a couple of weeks and will decide if I want to be a part of this editors community or not. Maybe unfairness is one of the reasons why good editors are getting repelled by wikipedia. Acharya63 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentions of caste on Wikipedia always provoke reaction anyway. How many times do I have to tell you that the caste of a person can be included if it is relevant to their notability/achievements etc? It doesn't matter whether the person is a serial murderer or the president of the country, so the idea that it will be used to demonise is nonsense. As it happens, it is currently almost always used to glorify. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I clearly understood it the first time you mentioned it. Also, I never objected to adding caste for any serial killer. As I said, caste IS family background and says a million things about a person. It is not like his sun sign. It is definitely NOT trivia - otherwise the Govt of India would not have recognized it. Anyway, that aside, let us assume it is trivia. Even then, my main point was caste IS currently being mentioned EVEN in cases(usually politicians) where it is absolutely irrelevant. This selective mention EVEN IN IRRELEVANT CASES (if the action of the person has nothing to do with caste) demonizes a community if only bad people are selected. That is why I gave specific examples. I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall...sigh..There was a personal experience my family(parents) and I had to go through with a Pakistani cab driver in Chicago - related to demonizing a community (marathi hindus in that case)- that made me so emotional in this issue. Kind request please - let us close this topic. I will take up this issue with the Admin board later because I am unable to explain it to you (for which I blame my communication skills). This is nothing personal - in fact, I have highest respect for your skills. I just need for a general consensus to clear my own confusion and get guidance and in the interest of long term fainess, justice, honesty and integrity of wikipedia (this is a general comment for the future, not intended against any editor). Kind Regards, Acharya63 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Chiniot etc

Hallo Sitush, I see you've interacted a couple of times with the editor who creates articles like Battle of Chiniot: they don't seem to understand referencing, keep using {{sfnp}} without giving full references, and it looks as if the material might be copied from elsewhere though I can't see where. Not my subject area - you might like to have a look? Are they a walled garden of dubious articles inadequately sourced? I've just left a note on their talk page asking them to give proper references. Could wait to see if that has any effect ... ? PamD 21:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that Punjabi-Mughal War, which you turned into a redirect, was reverted back to being a full article? I note also that it was created in the editor's first ever edit, complete with infobox - though of course editors might have edited as IPs before getting an editor name, WP:AGF. Hmmm. PamD 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course you noticed ... just looked at the talk page. PamD 22:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I am not around much at the moment but have restored the Punjabi-Mughal War redirect and again highlighted the issues on that talk page. I suspect that pretty much everything that particular contributor has done will need to be reverted because there appear to be numerous problems of a fairly irretrievable variety. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: look at Talk:Battle of Pindi Bhattian. I've been trying to tidy up after the contributor but it really isn't looking great - lots of enthusiasm but little regard for accuracy and the sources are practically fake refs in some instances. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And then after your edit ... I've reverted the revert. A mess. Keep up your excellent work! PamD 05:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush and Hi PamD, I have created the articles Punjabi-Mughal War, Battle of Pindi Bhattian and Battle of Chiniot. All three articles are well sources and have been reviewed and been approved. I don't understand why It should be redirected when eveything is correct. I understand your points that I keep removing the redirect. And I appoligize. But Please let these three articles stay because they are Accurate, Sourced and have been reviewed by others. Kindy, AhdBhat. AhdBhat (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You are doing a good job of suppressing truths. You are a classic example of an anti Raju POV pusher Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

All your talk of "suppression" and "justice" and what the government says, together with ultimatums, edit warring despite being reverted by two people in good standing, and claims of "racism" and that I "will pay for it" (see here) is not helping you. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

All your personal attacks on a community will definitely not help you. You called an entire community of people self glorifying and you have also issued threats to block me just because you have admin rights. This amounts to abuse of admin rights and I will raise this issue. Thanks for treating me as a slave. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not have admin rights. I have not threatened to block you. It is indisputable that some people within the Raju community are self-glorifying: that has been stated by academics and is also self-evident from the edit history of the Raju article. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You have clearly stated that Rajus are self glorifying people. You targeted an entire group of people and you even threatened me that I am attracting a block. The Rajus are Kshatriyas of Andhra and they are recognized as such by the governments. What is wrong in considering themselves Kshatriyas when they have that status? Is that self glorification? Thanks for your vitriol. You even refused to consider any of my sources and started an edit war without any justification. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You have had numerous warnings and notification of the sanctions regimes that apply, yet still you breach WP:3RR at Raju, despite having been reverted by two people in good standing. This is not going to end well for you and I suggest you self-revert there now. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the exact statement you have used

"except in the minds of self-glorifying southern communities such as the Raju and the Nair". You have clearly targeted an entire community of people. Now you are threatening to block me in spite of providing sources. Please go ahead and reinstate your Rajulu which has no citations. Please go ahead and block me also. I didn't even revert thrice. I wonder what mistake I did other than providing genuine sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I will not revert again as I understood by now that it is futile. I am sure there will definitely be some good editors who will understand my intentions and who will value genuine sources. Thank you very much for your royal treatment. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The mistakes you have made have been explained to you here, at Talk:Raju and on your own talk page. That you either cannot or will not understand those explanations is unfortunate but competence is required. I am not prepared to deal with someone who adds walls of text and engages in personal attacks on a subject that has for a long time attracted sockpuppets and pov-pushers and which has thus had several periods of protection. You either understand that we have to be neutral or you do not, and you are either capable of phrasing nuanced statements or you are not. At the moment, it looks distinctly like "not" in all cases. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have never instroduced unsourced material in any of my edits. I have tried my best to conform to wiki standards. I didn't even indulge in an edit war. I just tried to reason. I am not here to fight with others. My genuine intention is to make the articles reflect reality. I am from Andhra Pradesh and I know the ground reality of my society. And I don't want Wikipedia to take my word for it. I will provide genuine sources. I will not revert that article again. I will do everything I can to make my point by without flouting any of the wiki rules. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I am not being allowed to contribute from genuine sources and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Sharkslayer87 (^Talk/_Edits) 00:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You've taken that to the wrong venue and way too soon for any venue other than the article talk page. But watch out the for WP:BOOMERANG nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That is fine. I believe my concerns are genuine. I just want to add reliable and true information and I was reverted and treated badly for a very long time. I believe I won't be punished for no fault of mine Sharkslayer87 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Punjabi-Mughal War

Hi Sitush, I made an article called Punjabi-Mughal War and also made an article Battle of Pindi Bhattian. Both of them are actual wars, with references to them. Please kindly allow my article.

AhdBhat (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am too unwell to deal with this at the moment but you are edit warring, ignoring talk page comments, and providing fake references etc. I see PamD has also been reverting you. I'm going to leave a templated note on your talk page because you are drifting into behaviour that is likely to lead to you being sanctioned in some way. You need to discuss the issues on the relevant article talk pages, although I do not hold out much hope for you gaining consensus for your actions. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing the matters on my page. AhdBhat (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Dear Sitush, you have nagged me a second time on this. I shall not part from what I said. It's too late for me to be of much use. --Prüm (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not my intention to nag and I do not believe that I did. I was merely trying to fix a problem that you had created and then, when your reply suggested that you did not understand, I posted a longer explanation. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Devendra kula Vellalar

-they were in bc(backward community before 1935) and they were known as Devendra thirukulla pallars this should be in their page -they correctly formed the pandiyan army -they are found chiefly in the pandiya country -their subcaste are supposed to be mention Devendra Kula Vellalar -kudumbar -moopan -Devendra kulathan -Pannadi -Pallar -Kalladi -Kadaiyar -vathiriyar -they also belong to the kurmi Kshatriyas

For all this I have evidence in the form of images,which is frm books Moopan Devendra Kula Vellalar (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Pallar/Pallan also means king ,the original name of Bihar was Pallan.Palla also means protector &ruler(pg 110,the open secrets of India,Israel, Mexico -from genesis to revelations! Moopan Devendra Kula Vellalar (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Devendra Kula Vellalar community is given first respect in almost every ancient temple,the festival only begins after they have been given first respect and temple chariot procession only starts when the Dkv touches the chariot Moopan Devendra Kula Vellalar (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Muley Jats

I posted a comment earlier and I've had a relook on Muley Jats. The text about contested conversions under either Akbar or Aurangzeb or the Sufi Ganjshakar was always unsourced. See [3]. The newer sources added by the IP editor too don't contain any such information.

I haven't found any reliable source that talks about contested conversions under Ganjshakar, Aurangzeb or Akbar. I will keep looking. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)