User talk:Lord kai07

Welcome!

Hi Shiraj chandra! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! RegentsPark (comment) 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having me! Shiraj chandra (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Maurya Empire have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please note that instead of edit warring, you should take your concerns to the talk page per WP:BRD and attempt to garner a consensus for your edits. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOURCETYPES for clarifying the best form of reliability on WP, and WP:TERTIARY for doing the same for due weight. Widely-used text books, such as that of Tim Dyson, the foremost historical demographer of India, are used for determining due weight.

Please also read the essay, WP:Lead fixation Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of constructive criticism to be specific. If I'm not wrong the sources I gave were clearly stating against the idea of caste existing in mauryan period at least,caste wasn't consolidated until the gupta period,even the sources previously provided stat that only a few people followed some form of medieval hierarchy,and that the it didn't affect most of the empire as the empire was well spread out throughout the subcontinent. Am I supposed to write something else?? Can I just write those sources on the talk page and verify them and then add them? Shiraj chandra (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian caste system, the oldest existing form of apartheid in the world came int being in the late Vedic age, per the evidence of many historians, such as Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund in A History of India, for example, another widely used text book, cited by 853 scholarly sources on Google Scholar.

Say, K&D:

This quote from a Late Vedic text is revealing in several respects. It shows that the indigenous people subjected by the Aryans possessed great skills as artisans. Racial discrimination against these dark-skinned people also led to a discrimination against the trades which they plied. The original lack of such skills among the Vedic Aryans was probably one of the most important reasons for the emergence of the caste system, which was designed to maintain the social and political superiority of the Aryans. The text quoted above also indicates that the Vedic Aryans did not bring the potter’s wheel along when they entered India but that they found it there.

You are new to WP, barely able to write in Wiki markup language. I sincerely recommend that you learn some skills, cut your Wiki-teeth on simple uncomplicated articles, not start editing the leads of old, controversial articles. Leads are highly compressed summaries.

They require some experience. I'm trying to be helpful, not sound patronizing. All too often new editors don't listen to this sort of advice and don't last long, which is not what either you nor I want. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=XsOtRGdvIigC&redir_esc=y

Caste system isn't apartheid. It simply isn't. Colour was never really a factor in casteism. I see dark skinned brahmins being unfair to pale dalits as well, it's a matter of status not colour. Apartheid is a whole different thing. Also there are multiple historians who deny the implications of rothermund and kulke. Few examples:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gsZkAu-RHVgC&redir_esc=y
Smelser, Neil; Lipset, Seymour (2005), Social Structure & Mobility in Economic Development, ISBN 978-0-202-30799-2
https://web.archive.org/web/20140313043711/http://www.hindu.com/2001/03/10/stories/05102523.htm
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm

Chakravarti, Uma (2 March 1985), "Towards a Historical Sociology of Stratification in Ancient India: Evidence from Buddhist Sources", Economic and Political Weekly, 20 (9): 356–360, JSTOR 4374135 Chakravarti, Uma (2003), Gendering Caste Through a Feminist Lens, Popular Prakashan, ISBN 978-81-85604-54-1

https://www.wisdomlib.org/jainism/book/uttaradhyayana-sutra/d/doc424235.html

Shiraj chandra (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue with you. I've told you the ground rules of WP. Please read WP:BRD. You made a bold edit. I reverted it to a version in which the article had lain for quite some time. It is your business to garner a new consensus on the talk page. That can take time, sometime weeks. All the best. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not this talk page, but the article's talk page. By apartheid I mean forms of stratification, endogamy, and segregation that may have had their origins in notions of racial exclusion and patrimony several thousand years ago, not the melanin content of the skin today, when the apartheid has become transformed by various forms of upliftmant and state intervention, but not entirely gone. More than nine out of 10 Hindus marry in arranged marriages within caste per the latest sociological surveys. The caste system will not go until arranged marriages to, and they show no signs of letting up. This is as far as I engage you here. I urge you again to learn some skills first. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Indian Soups and Stews has been accepted

List of Indian Soups and Stews, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Lord kai07 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited edits in Marriage in Hinduism

Hello, this is regarding your edits in the article Marriage in Hinduism. You had altered the cited content stating that the gandharva marriage was a non-righteous form of marriage, and the classification of four righteous and four non-righteous marriages. Note that one of the sources (Page 86 of The Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan) states that the gandharva marriage is "one of the four base forms of marriage." Please do not change cited content on Wikipedia articles without offering reliable sources or based on any personal beliefs you may hold. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Base forms of marriage? Wouldn't that mean one of the righteous forms of hindu marriage. It definitely wasn't seen as unrighteous Lord kai07 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the source. It only stats base form of marriage. Out of which some were permissible while others were not. Gandharva marriage was permissible to a large population of the Indian subcontinent. Only ba miniscule portion of Brahmins didn't follow it. Then there is a huge difference between base form and righteous and non righteous. I would suggest changing the words and using a more appropriate word to describe these marriages. Gandharva marriage wasn't seen as non righteous. Lord kai07 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yasin Malik. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it is a neutral point of view. Even Yasin Malik has considered himself as a terrorist. And aren't Al-Jazeera and Indiatoday reliable sources? Lord kai07 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Fifth-generation fighter 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to aircraft or weaponry articles, specifically the edits you have made on Fifth-generation fighter, indicate that you are adding and/or removing information based on a nationalistic position. Wikipedia is a global, collaborative project to build an encyclopedia; the inclusion or exclusion of information in an article based on national pride instead of verifiable facts does not contribute to encyclopedia building and is, in fact, disruptive. Your edits have accordingly been reverted; please note that continued edits in this fashion may be seen as edit warring, and a pattern of similar edits to multiple articles as tendentious editing; either may result in your being blocked from editing. Please refrain from making such edits in the future, instead editing in a neutral manner based on reliable sources. Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at The Kerala Story. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer please let me know if there are any more problems in the IPA area. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't vandalize anything. The source literally stated what I wrote. This is bs. Lord kai07 (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord kai07 Quote them then. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord kai07 Once again, please quote them. If you don't I'll assume you can't and likely topic ban you. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (The Kerala Story) for edit summary which was far from the truth and refusal to give sources backing their edit - this is instead of a TB which I considered.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity War accolades

Hello, I'm messaging you as you are one of the main contributors of List of accolades received by Avengers: Infinity War and I was wondering if you planned to nominate it for Featured List? I'm working on making an MCU Avengers Good Topic and the list is one of the aricles that needs to be promoted for the topic. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]