User talk:Anonymustruth

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles

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.

-- Ekdalian (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Ekdalian. You have been adding or changing content in an article, Kalita (caste), but you are ignoring the consensus mentioned in the edit summaries. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kalita (caste); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... The Varna was originally mentioned there before, I just edited it, add some citation, and did a minor grammatical change. So I am not understanding the problem, also as I searched through some other articles, Varna is mentioned in various other articles of other castes too... Anonymustruth (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If something incorrect exists, that doesn't mean it should exist forever. Adding more citations won't help. I have clearly mentioned & provided the link for the consensus, you have ignored the same and engaged in edit warring instead. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then let restore it to the original version, as it was for years, again adding citation that they are Shudra will be total false thing, and even if that true, that Kalita should not be a General Caste. And lastly Varna is mentioned in Various other articles like Yadav, Kayasth in the lead section. Is not that a problem ?? Anonymustruth (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again! If something incorrect exists for years, it doesn't justify the same, how many times do I need to explain? I am sure Kayastha article doesn't mention their ambiguous varna status, I will check the article on Yadav, & remove the varna in case it's there in the lead section. You may also provide the wikilinks of any such article. Also, a new section on 'Varna' may be created on Kalita, and different opinions can be added. For reference, check the article on Bengali Kayastha, you will understand higher castes doesn't mean that they may not be considered as Shudra by some authors, also you will understand how different opinions on varna should be mentioned in a separate section. Ekdalian (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to the original version, as it has been for years, "They commonly claim to belong to Kshatriya varna", so I'm not ascertaining anything definitely, claim means other people can have other opinion, I just cited the most common claim. And yes, Yadava article do mention that they argue Kshatriya varna. Anonymustruth (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]