Talk:Devendra Kulathan

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Edit Warring by Mamallanarsimhavarman

I have no problem in discussing propsed changes for this article, my changes are backed by citations from reliable sources. please explain your concern before modifying the article and I also request you to engage in talk page before you make any changes.EruTheLord (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss first, you just made changes on your own by removing existing statements which was with reliable sources as well. My concern is why we're you changing the article before engaging in the talk page first? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited my sources I did not delete anything relevant only irrelevant things. You have been editing this page for many times without any engagement in talk page so I just did what you followed but when I started editing you started to edit war instead of discussing. EruTheLord (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't judge on your own that it's irrelevant. Yes I was reverting your edits as your did not explain your statement first and removing on your own. I don't have to edit war on you and you don't have give an excuse by saying you are following me. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited my sources from official government documents, you did not explain when you were pushing raj era sources and dubious claims. EruTheLord (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If by "official government documents" you mean schedules of OBCs, SCs etc, please do not use them as sources. They are not reliable for identifying castes and are primary sources. There have been over 1200 changes to the OBC list alone since it was introduced, and the entire exercise is politicised. The number of ambiguities in the things has caused major problems in the past and it has long been the consensus that we should not use them. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use Thurston either, so that will need to be removed. See User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Some edits I accept your reason but I am convinced we should you use modern names not historical names. So I will revert that one also for Hinduism you should give proof or I will revert. EruTheLord (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it is not the solution, add citation is needed there, then it will be added! Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine give proof. EruTheLord (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s better for us to discuss things and sort out. No point of arguing. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing hinduism i did not remove in this page any time for your reminder.I am talking in a general sense. You are simply adding hinduism in all pages.EruTheLord (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I overlooked it,noted. Thank you Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If U also agree to use talk page before any editing I will not touch the article. Now if you want change anything you can propose. EruTheLord (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i am open for discussion already, we can discuss as it makes things easier for both of us.I was just frustrated seeing things being removed without explanation nothing else. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also that SC info sitush added. You should reinstate that content ASAP. Or I will. EruTheLord (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we will continue our discussion tomorrow. It was removed to be added back in a better way. No worries will get this done asap. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I you wont I will , without adding that back it will not be neutral. EruTheLord (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bro, don't you understand things? I told you we will continue the discussion tommorow and you still insisted to revert the edits back, so what's on your mind actually? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you cant change things to your POV and then claim to have discussion. It is you who dont understand things. You undid my revision and you should have stopped there you made additional changes which cannot be accepted.EruTheLord (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the scheduled caste thing don't have to be added? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted things to be neutral don't you? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the neutrality? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits back so that I can add the schedule caste reservation,which you provided with source. So understand what is happening around before reverting the edit back! Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done it is added, the dispute is settle in the page already,if you have anything more discuss first ! Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not settled you have put it where it was not originally there. It was mentioned head section and you have created a seperate subsection . I ask you to put it in head section below or above the info box. EruTheLord (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it be in the head section. It looks better in this way where it explains about the reservation clearly Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source say positive discrimination? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is where it should be. Also that wording was by sitush ask proof from him. Anyway positive discrimination is proper term which is understandable globally. EruTheLord (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the ex for it? Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to other pages where sitush intervened. You will find out.EruTheLord (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the sources removed? Thurston source is understood, what abt the other sources? Stop removing the sources!! If better sources is needed just place them beside the sources rather then removing them. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]