User talk:Amal89

Welcome!
Hello, Amal89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

March 2013
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Ezhava, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a personal attack, I merely quoted what you said. You can either take it in a good way or bad way. It's up to you. Amal89 (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Things like To win the argument and your stubborn resistance to acknowledge that you are wrong in this case, and that you have no knowledge whatsoever in matters relating to castes in India, shows that you are either inept or making this article for some ulterior motives. are becoming tiresome at best and they are unnecessary. Furthermore, just saying that you will not start legal action but simultaneously warning of the legal consequences is not acceptable behaviour. I can assure you that the chances of India taking legal action against me or Wikipedia are as near to zero as makes no difference due to issues of jurisdiction ... but the same may not apply to other people. We get these threats frequently on caste articles and they "chill" discussion without - so far - ever leading to any action. They are often the last resort of the bullies. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have mentioned you in the WP:ANI discussion that originally started about another editor on the same page. You may comment in it at WP:ANI. Note that I am requesting that you be blocked for making legal threats after specifically being told not to. There is no doubt that your comment was intended to cast a "chilling effect", which is what WP:NLT aims to stop. You can't point a gun at someone's head and claim to not be threatening them and have that claim have any validity. Either discuss nicely, or find another website to air your grievances. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out someone's mistake is not a personal attack. Pointing out how legally incorrect this article is also not a threat. How can attribute the religious views of one caste to another one and say that it doesn't hurt them. Every country has laws regarding this. Pointing it out is not a threat. If you people don't want others to give correct information, Why do you write pages on Wikipedia and spoil it. That's why you have blogs. Wikipedia is not for expressing your personal views. Amal89 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You are lucky that I am not an admin today, or I would already have blocked you for repeating your personal attacks over at WP:ANI - but rest assured that you will be blocked if you do it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Define personal attack? I'm little confused. If pointing mistakes is personal attack, why do we have a talk page on wikipedia? Amal89 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that people are mistaken is indeed not a personal attack, as mistakes are not deliberate. But accusing someone of "knowingly giving wrong information", which is what you are doing, alleges deliberate dishonesty - and that *is* a personal attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. How about when someone shows a government document that clearly shows the two castes are considered different by the Government? And on wikipedia an editor still uses the word 'official' to claim that the two castes are same. This is evident from this "The Ezhava and Thiyya communities are officially treated as one...." Doesn't this make a deliberate dishonesty? And that is why I said from now on keeping this article as it is will constitute knowingly giving wrong information. I don't know who wrote it in the first place. The article itself is the culprit. Amal89 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a content disagreement, and you should try to resolve it by seeking consensus on the talk page or on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, rather than assuming that because someone might disagree with you over the interpretation or reliability of a document, then they must be deliberately lying, and accusing them of such. You really need to start listening to the reasons why people are contesting your version of the article, as there really is no alternative other than consensus when it comes to settling content disagreements. And if the consensus goes against you, you simply have to accept it until you can provide fresh evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Request
You have as every one of us, imperfect understanding of Wikipedia, more so because of your relative inexperience. I suggest that you study Wikipedia policies well before getting into arguments over them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The various links given in the welcome aren't for decoration, please study them, leave pages alone, where you find friction. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll go through those Yogesh. But the idea of leaving controversial pages alone, you see, if everyone thinks like that, then soon there will be monopoly over articles. Amal89 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly Yogesh Khandke or you meant but their statement appears to be good advice and your statement appears to suggest you still have a poor understanding of policy. Generally speaking, if you find people are disagreeing with or even reverting your edits you should indeed stop editing. This doesn't mean you should forget about the problems or improvements, rather in such case you generally shold engage in discussion and seek consensus for the way to move forward rather them continuing to make disputed edits. Note that when engaging in discussion you have to not only explain your POV or proposals, but also read and try to understand others. If you are having difficulties reaching consensus there are various options to try and resolve this which I'm sure you'll find discussed in the links already provided. It's important that whatever you do, you avoid violating our policies on personal attacks, legal theats etc. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne Amal89 did not give any legal threat to anyone, I had a look the whole communication between Amal89 and other admins. What Amal89 explained is the legal consequences in india, if someone claims something which hurts religious feeling of other people,  which is right isnt it. But some admins wanted to stop Amal89 and impose sanctions on him. I have seen warnings on his user page. I believe that criticising is not an offence in wikipedia. If there is any issues with articles POV then we need to have a discussion, by blocking people one by one, these admins are violating wikipedia rules. Amal provided many reliable sources. Based on those sources we have to have a proper discussion in the talk page to come to a consensus. I have seen that, many people have been blocked for taking a stand against these admins. Some admins here mis using Wikipedia Caste Sanctions. Irajeevwiki (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean Amal, would it not be easier for you to create an article or edit less controversial subjects, wouldn't a better understanding of Wikipedia equip you better to deal with the controversies, the other way is the one many follow: Block->Sock-> Indefinite block. It is your choice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking your opinion
Hi Amal, I prefer not to muddy up the Ezhava talkpage secttion, so I'm asking you here: do you seriously think that Izhava listed with Thiyya is separate from the listing of Ezhava (thus making Izhava the same caste to Thiyya according to the NCBC list, and making Izhava a different caste than Ezhava?) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Martijn, I don't think it's a clerical error. I believe that the Izhava mentioned along side thiyya is referring to members who once belonged to the Izhathu mannanar dynasty; and izhathu mannanar is a thiyya dynasty. They always considered themselves as a subcaste of thiyya. The similar names is what is confusing you. Amal89 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the Izhava are a subcaste of the Thiyya, and unrelated to the Ezhava. Is that indeed what you are saying? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the history, these Izhava are actually thiyya, but because of the royal administrative powers they had, they considered themselves as different like all nobles during that time. The similar thing can also be observed with the other subcaste of thiyya, the chekavars, who formed themselves a military thing and called themselves chekavar. The Unniyarcha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unniyarcha article clearly describes her as chekavar with thiyya in parenthesis. All these different dynasties, who were basically thiyya had addressed themselves by their family names. Due to the sizable population, the ncbc article sometimes need to refer them as separately, but if they are same or a subcaste, they always referred to them in the same entry number. And that is why I keep saying that the Ezhava and thiyya are not same. If it had been same or a subcaste, then although they would still be addressed by different names, the ncbc list would have included them in the same entry number. (It's entry number, not serial number). Amal89 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You did notice the document lists Izhava also in section 14 right? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, that actually confused me. :( But the confusion is only with the Izhava and not thiyya.  Amal89 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you are not so sure of the explanation above on the Izhava-Thiyya relation? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure about the explanation I gave on the Izhava-Thiyya relation, but I have no clue regarding the Ezhava-Izhava relation. Amal89 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Martijn, Is history documented/ engraved on stones, temple walls etc accepted as reliable sources? If yes, I will be able to bring some evidence in the coming months. Amal89 Amal89 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are sure about Izhava is a subcaste of Thiyya, you are sure of Ezhava is unrelated to Thiyya, and you are sure that the document is correct. Those can't all be true at the same time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The truth of this ncbc document is supported by other related documents which I believe has already been shown by other users. And if all those documents are true, then Ezhava is unrelated to Thiyya. Yes, I agree there is confusion over whether Izhava is part of Ezhava or Thiyya. But that is not in any way showing that Ezhava and Thiyya are related. The controversy is over the inclusion of Thiyya as part of Ezhava and not over inclusion of Izhava in Ezhava. No primary sources are there as proof to show that Ezhava and thiyya are same. The only possible situation for ezhava and thiyya to be same is when all the government documents, day to day activities and culture and racial differences, government acts, resolutions, DNA tests conducted by Dr. Shyamalan are all wrong at the same time. A highly unlikely situation. The secondary sources which claim both are same might as well be considered as work of fiction because of this. Amal89 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Amal89, please can you confirm that you have read all of the content at WP:RS and WP:OR. If you have and if you still insist on saying what you have just said above then either (a) you are failing to understand those policies or (b) you are deliberately choosing to ignore them. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I am failing to understand about the secondary sources, well confused actually. It makes no sense to me to ignore a truth that is so clear to me. I have asked Martijn about the same few hours back on his talk page. Amal89 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I am glad that you have raised the issue with Martijn Hoesktra. Let's hope that we can find a way to explain it. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is positing links to photos of famous people ok? I might be able to explain our side of the story with more accuracy. Agreed no reliable secondary sources available. But still it will explain a lot about why the argument is all about. Amal89 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The links will not help, sorry. Two problems would emerge: the first is that you would need to find a reliable source saying that they do/did self-identify as Thiyya and the second is that - even if one was white-skinned with ginger hair and the other was dark-skinned with black hair - it would be original research for us to compare the two and say that because of their differences in skin/hair colouring then they are obviously not of the same origin. To be honest, I'd also be worried about straying into the territory of scientific racism, which is the discredited method that Edgar Thurston adopted. I realise that this is frustrating for you but Wikipedia is not a perfect source of knowledge: like any system, it has flaws and it has rules that simply cannot cover every eventuality. You could always try to get a change in the policies themselves but when they are such core aspects of the project, well, the inertia that you would have to overcome to effect this would be considerable. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The first problem can be solved, I have seen the TV interviews in which they self - identify as thiyya ( how else would I know about it ). The second problem about the original research, maybe you are right, and if wikipedia is not a perfect source of knowledge then it doesn't bother me anymore (I always thought it was). Amal89 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Alas, nothing is perfect (apart from me, of course ). Perfection is an ideal and something that we can all aspire to but, like most ideals, it is not really attainable. Maybe my view is the cynicism that comes with old age! - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Amal, you really need to get a good hang of what wp:RS is, that is why I gave the polytechnic example, you see if the issue is so hot, then it should be into mainstream scholarly work, NCBC is about "Class" and not "caste", also it is a primary source. What would be acceptable is a scholarly work that states: "Ezava and Thiya are separate castes" and many scholars repeat the same in their work, that would be a reliable source(s). As I wrote on the article talk page, you could first try to collect a few sources and then try to get them accepted on the talk page or at the RS discussion page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:INB
I have referred at the India Project's talk page to one of your posts on the Talk:Ezhava page. You can see it here. Obviously, you are welcome to contribute to that new thread but please note that it is not a thread for discussion of the Ezhava/Thiyya issue but rather a general query relating to the status of mahasabhas. I'd rather that you did not derail any discussion with stuff that would be better suited to Talk:Ezhava. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks sitush, I will try to contribute. My observation was based on Ministry of Corporate affairs website and similar ones that keep record of such organizations. Amal89 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Zebedee could we have the diff where he made the legal threats please. AFAIK he didn't make any. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was this edit, "Giving this to cyber crime...'". However, it is possible I may have misunderstood the intention. So, Amal89, if you can clarify what you meant by that comment I'll be happy to review my block decision and unblock you if appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm doing this for him as he may not understand the implication of blocking, he has edited on the Ezhava talk page as an IP though he isn't socking. He signs as Amal89.


 * He wrote in response to another person's suggestion (to the effect) that the page be reported to cyber police, the complete edit is "keepwalkingji, Giving this to cyber crime - will only block the link to this page from India. It will still be there but no Indian user will be able to see it. I say, let it be there, let the world see this foolishness. And when more users come, let them keep on accusing them of being sockpuppets." In other words he said "Don't complain" to cyber cyber police. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I clearly did misunderstand the comment. Amal89, I apologise for my error, and I have unblocked you with an apology in my unblock note. I consider myself trouted for my mistake. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem Zebeedee...as you are the only sensible admin we have here, Apology accepted. Amal89 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)