User talk:Kayastha Shiromani

Kayastha Research Wing: http://chitraguptvanshi.wetpaint.com

Vision: To enlighten the universe.

Mission: To study about the Kayasthas of India.

Welcome!

Hello, Kayastha Shiromani, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Kayastha
Hi. While you're not new, you may not have been involved in situations where your edits are disputed before. At this point, two different editors have reverted your major changes to Kayastha. At this point, you are required to go discuss the issue on the article's talk page. You can't just keep trying to edit the article to look like the way you want it--doing so is called WP:Edit warring, and, if continued, can result in your account being temporarily blocked. As was pointed out in the last revert, one of the biggest problems with the version that you're reverting to is that it relies a lot on ancient Hindu texts, which Wikipedia considers to be primary sources. As a general rule, we may only use primary sources when the meaning of those sources is completely clear, and we can only use them to say "Primary source X claims Y." We can never just say "Y is true.<+ ref X>". In any event, lets discuss this on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your final warning for edit warring. If you again to attempt to revert to a version that is unambiguously in violation of our policy on verifiability and its component guideline WP:RS (which says that primary source may never be used as the main source of information in articles), I will request that you be blocked for edit warring. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you like, but you may not simply try to revert to a far far worse version. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kayastha
Hello KS. Please see WP:AN3, where a complaint about your edits has been filed. You are urged to respond there, because your edits are not going in a good direction. You may face sanctions soon if you are not willing to follow our policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Kayastha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note regarding law courts and puranas
Either for when you come back, or if you want to discuss it here while you're blocked, what law courts accept as evidence has no connection whatsoever to what Wikipedia accepts as evidence. In fact, almost none of the evidence presented at court trial would be accepted as a reliable source on WP--courts accept first-hand testimony, expert witnesses personal interpretation, etc. The rules for legal evidence are fundamentally different than Wikipedia's rules. The same is true for academic publishing, ecclesiastical courts, review hearings by government boards, etc.; every discourse community has its own rules on what counts as good evidence, and our rules state that primary sources like religious texts are not reliable sources for anything other than what those sources literally say. You clearly have a lot of knowledge, so if you're willing to discuss specific details, as well as learn our rules and behave accordingly, then we'll be happy to have you back in 2 days. Please, come, join the discussion instead of edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
You were recently blocked for edit warring on Kayastha. Your first edit on release from the block was to reinstate a similar edit without consensus, which is against the spirit if not the letter of our edit warring policy. Consider this a warning similar to Template:uw-3rr. If you reinstate this edit again without consensus I will seek administrative intervention.  Them From  Space  18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just coming to make a similar comment. Kayastha Shiromani, did you perhaps just misunderstand what edit warring means and how we work on Wikipedia?  The fact is, the version you want to has no consensus (because several of us argue it violates several different Wikipedia polices). If you want to change the article, you're going to have to get consensus on the article's talk page.  I recommend trying to do it part by part--pick one specific change you think should be made, and start a new section on Talk:Kayastha, and perhaps we can see if changes can be made (in whole or part).  I certainly don't think the article is perfect now, but I know that as a whole the version you're reverting to is far worse.  So why don't we try to see if we can find common ground on some parts, based upon [{WP:V]], WP:RS, and other relevant policies.  Reverting without discussion will definitely result in you being blocked, in increasing lengths of time, and that's just not a good result.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Kayastha
I have reverted your recent edit to Kayastha. To be honest, it was a complete mess of disconnected statements, using sometimes dubious sources or none at all. It was also placed inappropriately and added nothing to the information that the article already provides (using better sources) in the section discussing the various opinions regarding varna status. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kayastha. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sitush (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I am not messing about here. You have a history of edit warring on the Kayastha article and it simply is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I get your intent sir, it is perfectly noble. So is mine. Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you revert this. It makes little sense and has turned a statement into a quotation without providing a source. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It may make some sense to atleast a few crore of Kayasthas.Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Kayastha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have had a previous block for edit-warring on this same article, and you've had several further warnings since. Once your additions have been contested, you must discuss the material you wish to add on the article Talk page, and get a consensus supporting you before you add it again. Please be warned that further edit-warring once this latest block expires will only result in further, escalating, blocks, which will eventually become indefinite if you persist -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Based on your comments on Talk:Kayastha (which I removed) and on the talk page of an inactive editor, it seems that you are very likely headed towards an indefinite block. If you treat Wikipedia like a battleground, you won't have any success. Wikipedia is not about winning or losing. It's not about promoting one view of history over another. It's not about promoting the interests of your particular caste, group, family, or company. It's about compiling neutral information from reliable sources.  If you're here to do something else, then pretty soon you will find yourself no longer able to edit here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)