User talk:LukeEmily: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:45, 22 November 2020

Welcome!

Hi LukeEmily! 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! - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2020 (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.

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.

Template:Z33 Sitush (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for u

		The Special Barnstar
		This barnstar is provided to you for your edits on Rajput article.You have done hard work to bring it under Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy.I appreciate it.But i suggest just below infobox a single sentence is floating.Place it at right place.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily:

Thank you so much Heba Aisha. You deserve a barnstar too! Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rajput page talk

Recent statement of Sajaypal007 is a violation of policy.In the section of Rajput talk page called Regarding repetition of same line..i had explained the same thing again reiterated by him.This is WP:STONEWALL .Heba Aisha (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, I am 100% in agreement with you. I remember seeing your response to this issue earlier. His intent is now very clear. LukeEmily (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are various similar policies which explains his present behaviour as for example WP:LISTEN.since talk page of article is only for discussion related to improvement in article i m discussing this serious issue with u here.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the WP:LISTEN says that: Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia.Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you..This is clearly the present case....of Sajaypal on Rajput talk page.In case of origin image also the community concensus was in favour of keeping image was ultimately not agreed to by him.I don't know why Kautilya3 who is aware of this policy is not closing previous thread on which concensus is built ex.~origin image case.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I request Kautilya3 to take note of this policy called WP:ICANTHEARYOU and close the thread of Origin image as clearly the community concensus is in favour of keeping the image except Sajaypal whose case can be explained properly by WP:ICANTHEARYOU.I m not tagging Sajaypal coz. in past he saw it as Wikibullying and i don't want to violate the policies.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a moderated discussion takes place, people will naturally re-raise the issues that couldn't get settled in the previous discussion. There is nothing wrong with that.

The reason the discussion takes long is that almost all of you are newish users, who are yet to gain expertise on how to narrow differences and arrive at consensus quickly. Many of you are also using mobile devices which have limited capabilities and promote a "social media" style of interaction, which is not productive for Wikipedia content debates.

I am not here to enforce policies on conduct. But if egregious misconduct occurs, I will be happy to report to the admins. So far the only misconduct that is occurring is that of mutual recriminations flying about in the midst of content discussion. So please refrain from doing that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I m extremely sorry Kautilya3 if you find my request offensive.I m just trying to bring it to u that same things are repeated again and again and we have already explained those stuffs earlier.Also recriminations as you mentioned is not Persistent since the talk begun, from my side i tried a lot to help Sajaypal007 in other articles by correcting citation, placing it in proper format as for example in Lakha Singh and i also recognised his edits in Battle of Maonda and Mandholi from where the dispute started.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hope u are fine....you were not here for a long time.?? Heba Aisha (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, Hope you are doing well. I am fine. LukeEmily (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vairagya Shatakam of Bhartrhari moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vairagya Shatakam of Bhartrhari, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Loksmythe (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you Loksmythe. LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have enough content to not keep this article a stub forever??Heba Aisha (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, yes, I have the book and the translation. I was thinking of putting a one line summary for each verse.What is stub vs article?LukeEmily (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stub i think are those article which are started by someone but they fail to write more due to various reasons.And it appears like just one or two para definition of the topic.See i have also created 3 new article but they are expanded and i will expand further.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the archive

Hello LukeEmily. Nobody is likely to notice your edit to the archive, complaining about bad edits by User:Jaggi9988. ("User:Jaggi9988 keeps adding unsourced material despite requesting him not to do so on Maratha and Maratha caste related pages"). It would be better for you to notify User:Ymblanter directly of your concerns. He is the admin who responded to the ANI originally on 31 August. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston and User:Ymblanter LukeEmily (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, pls let me know if they continue after the block has expired--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Hi Aydin Aghdashloo page has a source that has been removed from a beta gram Also there are several updates that are missing from him page including his recent works, many letters of support that he has received from his students,... How can the page be unlocked so can be edited accordingly? Thank you! Mahshidboz (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mahshidboz, I do not know anything about Aydin Aghdashloo. I think you need to propose your changes on the talk page of that article - please see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#extended. Also, you may want to discuss with User:GeneralNotability Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "LukeEmily", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1997kB, thank you for your message. My name is neither Luke nor Emily. This is not a shared account.LukeEmily (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi help

National Action Plan on Climate Change (India) I created it with caution complying with policies like WP:POV and source used are third party independent sources. But a user tagged it as promotional. It is not actually as no external commercial website etc are used and target statements are confused as promotional by him. Plz seeking ur feed back on articles talk page where i m contesting against speedy deletion. The user nominated it due to his confusion with the subject. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, I agree with you. It is not WP:POV. I went through the sources and they look neutral. I have expressed my opinion on the talk page. LukeEmily (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, actually the user who put that tag seems to have less idea about the subject though i explained on his talk page but he took it in a different way.

Plz see Violence against animals in India delition pageHeba Aisha (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, someone has changed it to redirect to another page. You can add you content there in some section. If the content becomes too big , it may be eligible for a new page. LukeEmily (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rajput page: I have found the high quality sources from Cambridge in support of Ferishta's statement and an another comprehensive source too. If first line is removed i would like to put it as then as per first line we should put all the theories which are debating for origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first line should summarize that big section. If you have a source for Ferishta's statement, then it can be added especially if it is academic. Wikipedia should give all sides of the academic opinion. LukeEmily (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for the more elaborate discussion in future on the page.I would suggest you to read wiki article on Ravana Rajput...they are illegitimate progeny of the Darogis who were concubines of Rajput Rajas and they constitute 7% of Rajasthan population.Also the Rajput lifestyle section itself mention that they used to keep concubines whose sons were styled as Rajputs and there is a source too.The Cambridge source is high quality and i will put it when we will take final Descision regarding removal. Also the issue of Anandpal Singh encounter in Rajasthan is hotly debated in north india and is related to the subject.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil while on the forum: i have requested rfc on talk page of Rajput. You are advised not to reply on personal recriminations by other user and stick to content related comments.tqHeba Aisha (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some rules of WP:Rfc

This is a list of rules i found interesting.

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.

There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions.

Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions.

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved.
Like other discussions, RfCs sometimes end without an agreement or clear resolution. Please remove the {{rfc}} tag when the dispute has been resolved, or when discussion has ended.

Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Heba Aisha (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: I realize you didn't mean to do this, but by adding a {{rfc}} template, you triggered YapperBot to alert a bunch of people to a non-existent discussion. I've gone ahead and replaced it with a template link to prevent further disruption. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also caused this. The big red error message here should have alerted you that something was amiss. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:I dream of horses and Redrose64 Heba Aisha (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another article

Expanded ur Rajputization...plz check typos or copyedits.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, thank you for expanding the article. I think some editors might object to the old source. But anyway, other sources say the same.LukeEmily (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source is primary and rest are good sources.primary can be used sparingly and that was used only to support ferishta statement.So justifiableHeba Aisha (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Bihar need copyedits...cn u help to remove maintenance tag.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, OK sure. I will do it this weekend. LukeEmily (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for ur help

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up List of massacres in Bihar keep helping in future. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Heba Aisha. Will be happy to help if I can whenever needed although I do not know much about Bihar.LukeEmily (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 september was the date when we started rfc on rajput about origin and the person who had problem left as he was unable to give source. But he may create disruption and game the concensus once again in future.so it will be better to ask for request for closure on WP:ANI on 26 october.As the uninvolved admin will write result based on conversation and it can be used in future for disruptive editors.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical improvement

Provide me guidance in improving some articles. I am most interested in mathematical concepts like trigonometry calculus number theory. Achaar Vichaar (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achaar Vichaar, Some topics in Indian history are my specialty but not the above. Please refer to Help:Getting_started. LukeEmily (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You are welcome. Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shripad Damodar Satwalekar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Sadashiv gurhye

I've deleted this which we normally do with sock puppet edits that have had no response. I've also deleted the copy on the article talk page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali!

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you my dear Fylindfotberserk. Wishing you a Happy Diwali and a prosperous new year too.LukeEmily (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LukeEmily, would you kindly check this recent edit. Also pinging Мастер Шторм. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, I am looking the sources now. One source there is from Oxford University Press which is a scholarly publication. They have cited W. H. McLeod who seems fine to me. These two citations are ok. They have cited a book from Manohar publication, and I cannot really comment with certainty about this particular source. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Мастер Шторм. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding nonsense things on Rajputs page?

I am from India, there are some points I want to clarify you? 1. Rajputs are in general category considered as forward caste 2. Daroga are separate group as per caste census of 1931. They are not Rajput. They come under obc. So, you no concubine kids were accepted as Rajputs. 3. Rajputs are Kshatriya group, this is not as per bards or Charans. Some 1990s, or 2000s writers with their political agenda won't decide that. 4. Rajputs are not illiterate groups. Prithviraj learnt 14 languages as per historical biographies. Jantar Mantar ( observatory) was built by Raja Jai Singh. Do you think illiterate can build those structures. 5. I would remove your unnecessary links of Rajputization whenever I find it. Wikipedia is not your father's property. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Luke Emily your questions on Sacred thread and dwija, yes Rajputs used to recite Vedas and wear sacred thread. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0fmtjbaQPzMC&pg=PA64&dq=rajputs+rulers+vedas+reciting&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV6LDylpPtAhV-yTgGHYdMDIoQuwUwAXoECAYQBw#v=onepage&q=rajputs%20rulers%20vedas%20reciting&f=false Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rana of Bharat the articles are about Rajput community as a whole and and not about a princely state. The community contains ppl right from peasantry to ordinary small businessman who are not very much literate.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha- well today even Brahmins have peasantry and small businessman. We are talking about pre-independent India. I think you are confused on the community. Today a individual is entitled to do what they want to. In the Rajputs were warriors not some ordinary peasants and businessman. Yes they used to wear sacred thread and were part of the old schools. Not some illiterate as you think it to be Rana of Bharat (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rana of Bharat , there is no "nonsense" added. let us not even compare the highly literate and elite Brahmin community with Rajputs who were mostly illiterate with some exceptions(not my personal opinion). Please note that neither Heba Aisha nor I nor anyone else add personal opinions. Wearing a sacred thread does not imply Vedic knowledge- it is a ritual. There were 120 million Rajputs in India in 1980's. There should have been millions of Rajput scholars in the 19th century even if 1/10th of them studied Vedas (and hence Sanskrit). There are plenty of scholars that say that they were mostly illiterate at least until the Raj era. It does not mean they are illiterate today. We don't have any agenda against Rajputs or anyone else, please note that wikipedia editors added "chandal like tribe" to the Jat_people page. Please note that WP:OR prohibits personal opinions to be added on wikipedia. Now , to answer your points:

1. Rajputs are not open category - in states like Karnataka , Rajputs are considered OBC. Chitpawan or Deshastha Brahmins, on the other hand, are considered an open category no matter what state they migrate to.

2. Yes, Daroga were not originally accepted as Rajputs but now they are considered part of Rajputs and called Ravana Rajputs. In fact, the Rajput Karni Sena news shows that it was a conflict between a Jat and Ravana Rajput that let to the formation of the Karni Sena. See https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/rajasthans-karni-sena-a-political-profile-padmaavat-protests-rajput-5039550/

Kalvi and Mamdoli agree the SRKS was founded following the Rajputs’ struggle with their traditional rivals, the Jats, in 2006. That year, Anandpal Singh, a Ravana Rajput and then Rajasthan’s most notorious gangster, killed Jivan Ram Godara and Harphool Ram Jat in Didwana, allegedly over control of the illicit liquor business. As Jats protested, they got support from a wide spectrum of political leaders, and the police allegedly detained any Rajput man who could be linked to Anandpal. To resist their “hounding”, SRKS was founded on September 23, 2006, with 11 declared aims, including opposing political or social malice against Rajputs and the misrepresentation of history or historical figures, and promoting Rajput unity.

3.Rajputs claim to be Khatriyas but most modern western and Indian scholars disagree. On wikipedia we use academic sources from quality universities like Oxford etc.

4. There are several citations for illiteracy. Also discussed above. Prithviraj does not represent all Rajputs and scholars say that the Rajput identity did not even exist during his time.

5. Wikipedia is neutral and all views have to be presented. None of the edits can be classified as 'nonsense'. These are not personal opinions of editors. Please see WP:RS and WP:HISTRS.

Regards,LukeEmily (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Emily, Daroga are not Rajputs they are a OBC community. Rajputs are in general category. Ask the records and read about census done in 1931. Karni Sena is a open organisation even Brahmins are part of it. You are proving your hatred for a particular community. If this is the level of your knowledge better not write anything on Rajput page Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no "nonsense" added. let us not even compare the highly literate and elite Brahmin community with Rajputs who were mostly illiterate with some exceptions(not my personal opinion" Mr Emily this is your person opinion and nothing more. How do you describe illiteracy when Rajputs were part of the same gurukuls of which Brahmins were, including wearing sacred thread. Rajputs in north India started the Mayo College. You are just showing your hatred for a particular community in your reply to me. Let me correct some facts straight. 1. Firstly, you haven't added anything like "Chandaal" word on Jat people page. You have removed it as it doesn't suits your propaganda.

"Rajputs are not open category - in states like Karnataka , Rajputs are considered OBC. Chitpawan or Deshastha Brahmins, on the other hand, are considered an open category no matter what state they migrate to." By your dumb logic Gomantak and Gosain Brahmins are in OBC. Rajputs nowhere are in OBC.

There are no Rajputs in Karnataka. Actually no Rajputs is found beyond south of Narmada. Your knowledge about Rajput community is very less Secondly, Rajputs are not 120 million as per 1980. Impossible British census counted Rajput as 1.1 million including all Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs etc. Daroga were counted as separate group. And even today they are separate and don't marry Rajputs. 3. You have also added Nonia community in Rajput page. Nonia is not a Rajput group, nowhere in census etc they are regarded as Rajput. They are EBC groups.

"Yes, Daroga were not originally accepted as Rajputs but now they are considered part of Rajputs and called Ravana Rajputs. In fact, the Rajput Karni Sena news shows that it was a conflict between a Jat and Ravana Rajput that let to the formation of the Karni Sena. See https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/rajasthans-karni-sena-a-political-profile-padmaavat-protests-rajput-5039550/" If this is the level of your knowledge, then dont do wiki editing on Rajput page. Daroga are called as Ravana, and they are not regarded as Rajputs. Political organisation of Karni Sena also have Brahmins, Charans, etc also in them. So are they Rajputs. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.Rajputs claim to be Khatriyas but most modern western and Indian scholars disagree. On wikipedia we use academic sources from quality universities like Oxford etc. Answer : we don't claim to be Kshatriya, we are Kshatriya. If we are not Kshatriya then why Brahmins were giving Sisodia lineage to Maratha Shivaji. If We were not kshatriya there is no need for Brahmins to give Rajput descent to Maratha Shivaji. Yes your it was done by your same Deshastha Brahmin, or Chitpavan whatever. As per history there is no mention of Chitpavan before 1700 so are they no Brahmins. What nonsense are you talking about? 4. There are several citations for illiteracy. Also discussed above. Prithviraj does not represent all Rajputs and scholars say that the Rajput identity did not even exist during his time. And: who said this your daddy or some 1990 writers. Chitpavan are not mentioned before 1700 so they should not be Brahmins. There is no inscription which suggest Mishra, Jha is any Brahmin surname. They should not be any brahmin. You are just using your agenda. 5. Wikipedia is neutral and all views have to be presented. None of the edits can be classified as 'nonsense'. These are not personal opinions of editors. Ans: these are all based on personal choices of your casteist editors. You are ready to accept Ziegler or Kolf or any random writer of 1990 as your wiki choice, but not the British sources of Ibbettson, HA Rose, Bingley etc who are clear Rajput / Kshatriya being synonymous. 6. If we are not Kshatriya then Pandits are not Brahmins and Bania are not Vaishyas. There is no inscription which says Banias are Vaishyas. Keep your casteist agenda aside, you are not the only one who pay to Wikipedia to make it a better place. We also do. Your casteists won't be allowed here. It is not your personal property. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also "NO RAJPUT COMES UNDER OBC. KARNATAKA DOESN'T HAVE ANY RAJPUT. SOUTH OF NARMADA HAS NO RAJPUT AS IT WAS NOT PART OF ARYAVARTA." get this straight in your damned mind you illiterate Luke Emily. Last, your Brahmins sections like Gosain, Gomantak Brahmins are in OBC. Deshastha and Chitpavan are just two subgroups of Brahmins. What about Gomantak and Deshastha?. Apart from that Chitpavan are not considered brahmin by North Indian Brahmins. Similarly, Deshastha are not Brahmins but Marathi mixed brahmin as per Kanyakubja Brahmins of North. Why don't you write all this on Brahmin page? SHOULD I SHARE THE LINKS OF THE SAME WITH YOU? WILL YOU ADD IT BRAHMIN PAGE THEN? Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There should have been millions of Rajput scholars in the 19th century even if 1/10th of them studied Vedas (and hence Sanskrit)." As per Vedas kshatriya is job is of Warriors. Are you this level idiot. And you fool is an editor on Wikipedia? Do you even know anything about job of Kshatriya? And FYI Brahmins were no where elite in North India, historically they were beggars. Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Ravana groups from your Wikipedia page, The Ravana are descendants of Rajput men and their concubines, and were not originally accepted by the Rajput community as Rajputs.[3] They were regarded as the children of the Rajput princes' from concubines[4][5][6] and were household slaves.[4][7] They served the royal Rajput families as guards, soldiers and household servants.[8]

In order to raise their status, these people organized themselves into a caste,[9] and styled themselves as "Ravana Rajputs". The British Indian census authorities, however, rejected their claim to the Rajput status.[10]. It also says they are not accepted as Rajputs but are a separate caste as per census Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Emily, Ms Heba Aisha

Brahmins in Manipur are in OBC. Below is the details from the pdf circular. CENTRAL LIST OF OBCs FOR THE STATE OF MANIPUR Entry No Caste/ Community Resolution No. & Date 1. Badi (Nepali), Damai (Nepali), Gainay (Nepali), Kami (Nepali) and Sarki (Nepali) (who have been living in Manipur as members of the domiciled community since the 9th July 1947 and their descendants) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 2. Meitei, Meetei (including Meitei Brahmin, Meitei/Meetei Sanamahi and Rajkumar) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 12011/7/95-B.C.C.dt.17/07/1995 3. Meitei Pangal 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 4. Teli (who have been domiciled in Manipur for 10 years, and their descendents) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/0

Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope now you get why I am saying you are doing a agenda Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Emily, can you share any old scriptures more than 500 yr old where it is mentioned that Deshastha and Chitpavan are any Brahmins. Chitpavans are just 340 yrs old. And Deshastha are not more than 500 yrs. But you would not write this on Brahmin page. Brahmins of Manipur who are in OBC. I shared the details of it. Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some details about Rajputs from Brittanica much better than what you idiots made it on Wikipedia

The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in the northern and northwestern Indian subcontinent under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century CE onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Shudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs. Some of the invaders’ priests became Brahmans (the highest-ranking caste). So Rajputs were accepted as Kshatriya by your Brahmin uncles. Go and ask them why they do Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmins in Manipur are OBC, as you were writing nonsense about Rajouts, I need to share the circular of the same with you. Now, I hope you would add this on Brahmin page, as you say you are neutral.

Dear Mr Emily, Pls find below: CENTRAL LIST OF OBCs FOR THE STATE OF MANIPUR Entry No Caste/ Community Resolution No. & Date 1. Badi (Nepali), Damai (Nepali), Gainay (Nepali), Kami (Nepali) and Sarki (Nepali) (who have been living in Manipur as members of the domiciled community since the 9th July 1947 and their descendants) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 2. Meitei, Meetei (including Meitei Brahmin, Meitei/Meetei Sanamahi and Rajkumar) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 12011/7/95-B.C.C.dt.17/07/1995 3. Meitei Pangal 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 4. Teli (who have been domiciled in Manipur for 10 years, and their descendents)

Rana of Bharat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur Brahmins in OBC