User talk:Bengaliwikipro
Baidya[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you made an edit to Baidya. Please in future user the summary before saving to let others know your edit was in good faith, otherwise all we see is the removal over over 2k characters. Your edit looks well-intended to me and so I reverted my own cancellation of your contribution. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Baidya or vaidyas are brahmins I quoted Rigveda 10.97.6. a user name ekdalian trying to slander baidyas for his personal reasons with some non-authentic sources. I think Rigveda is the most authentic source for any issue related to Hinduism.
- Wikisource does not meet reliable sourcing criteria. Please review the link provided in this message regarding the expected sourcing on Wikipedia, as well as the message below regarding special considerations when editing articles regarding castes and social groups.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 | 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 shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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. |
I assume you restored your disputed edits prior to reading these notifications. Please use the talk page to discuss and get consensus for contentious edits of this nature.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Rigveds is not authentic?? are u kidding me??
- As an administrator I am not taken issue with the content specifically, only with the use of unreliable sources. Please take the time to review the information and links in the blue box above, as well as our sourcing requirements, as disruption in this topic area could lead to sanctions on your account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)- As you continue to restore disputed content sourced to wikisource instead of reviewing the information above, I've blocked your account for 24 hours. Once the block expires, please ensure you follow the guidelines and policies regarding editing on Wikipedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
rigveda 10.97.6 baidyas are clearly mentioned as brahmins
- Use the article talk page(s) to make your claims supported by reliable sources and get consensus for the material to be added to the article(s). If you cannot make the effort to learn our policies regarding content, your Wikipedia editing experience will be a very short one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10097.htm now you will say it is also a non acceptable source???
- As you are not actually reading the information I'm providing you in order to help you edit once the block expires, I will no longer be responding.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.jeevansathi.com/bengali-baidya-matrimony-matrimonials see first I gave the most authentic source of Hinduism that is Rigveda 10.97.6 quote. where baidyas are mentioned as brahmins now I am giving you a piece of matrimonial website information about baidyas, where they are also mentioned as brahmins .this is a propaganda by mr ekdalian to insult vaidyas for his personal agenda.I can give more prooves from Ramayan and Mahabharata that vaidyas(ancient doctors are brahmins).many famous vaidyas like Charaka and Sushruta also brahmins .
May 2021[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- Also, if you keep attacking User:Ekdalian's motives and good faith, you will be blocked from all of Wikipedia. Please read WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC).
🤣🤣🤣 Bengaliwikipro (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, if you are rolling on the floor laughing at that warning it shows you don't take it seriously. Convince me why I shouldn't block you from Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
if giving proper citation is a reason to block then what can I say more?? mr ekdalian has some personal propaganda against baidyas,
avishek sengupta explained enough about this matter on the talk page of baidyas. kindly go through them.
- Your comments at Talk:Baidya (diff) have been removed because the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. If there are any further observations about other editors you will be blocked indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely[edit]
Your edits since Johnuniq's warning, expressing disdain for other editors, clearly show that you are here purely for caste glorification, not to help create an encyclopedia. You have been blocked indefinitely. 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 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
May 2021[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.