User talk:Ramarao1234

Talk
Me Rama Rao ahe ani ye account Ratnagiri Ramarao che ahe.

Misrepresenting the information
Dear @Jonathansammy, I hope I am mailing a correct person.Seems like you are experienced editor just wanted one clarification for the below statament. ” Gaud Saraswat Brahmins (GSB) (also Goud or Gawd), also known as Shenvis are a Hindu community of contested caste status and identity” -This source less statement and based on two different citations coming to conclusion by removing good sourced statement is not allowed in Wikipedia. My explanation:Shenvi and GSB are not synonymous instead there are multiple groups inside GSB.GSB brahminhood was never challenged instead Shenvi brahminhood was challenged which they defended using banarus pandits.It was a part of gramanya. So based one which this worst statement removing brahmin claim came to the scenario? Ramarao1234 (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ramarao1234 (talk), Varna status has been disputed in the last few centuries for many communities, and prominent people including Shivaji.Personally, caste and sub-castes are nothing but another name for tribes and Varna disignation was mainly a mischief played by the British to keep Hindus fighting amongst each other.But putting so much emphasis on varna,I think,is a case of UNDUE. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to devote to this article but I do keep an eye on it and remove blatant cherry-picking.Thanks.

@ Jonathansammy, Thank you for replying,I can point out huge cherry picking in that page.I didn’t understood why top noch researcher like irawati karve and guhye is being disrespected by the editor there!! In that page I found so much hate,Ex:Malicious Deep explanation of Varna and to prove they aren’t Brahmins.Irony is not a single dispute has been mentioned except cherry picking to the level best.

If possible please go through this statement

1“Gaud Saraswat Brahmins (GSB) (also Goud or Gawd), also known as Shenvis are a Hindu community of contested caste status and identity”-This is baseless and sourceless.

2.”Deshasthas,Chitpavan and Karhade were united in rejecting brahminhood of Saraswat and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity” -I have read above paper completely,Wagle is explaining the dislike between Brahmins of Maharashtra and mutual slandering because of politics but here the editor has cherry picked this.

3. Upon moving out of Goa, their claims of Brahminhood were rejected both to the north[citation needed], by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins of Maharashtra, and to the south, by the Nambudiri Brahmins of Kerala, and were not recognized in British colonial records. -The true quote is speaking about GSB arriving to Kerala via sea route which was considered impure by nambodharis and same paper is speaking about Raja accepting them as Brahmins donating lands.

4.shenvais has been mentioned as synonym in the first page but prominent researcher like karve clearly explained the different categories where shenvi is one part but modern scholars explained the content using the specs of Maratha empire and mentions shenavi as GSB.

5.Sahyadrikahnd explanation is one sided cherry picking with unnecessary interconnection mainly Bambadekar and Sharmila rege.Bambadekar is basically a British Raj person don’t know how Bahujan writers become neutral?

5.Only one dispute of shenavis was 1600AD(approx) clash I.e.Karhade vs shenavis regarding Satkarma Brahmins status and reason was FISH EATING.This has been justified by benarus brahmins.This you can find in O’Hanon(2010 and 2013) both the paper.

6.I appreciate you for mentioning classification that shows your research maturity->This is what Irawati and ghuye both have mentioned in their publications. This is the reason why I am messaging you,being a true researcher hope you look into it. 
 * Ramarao1234 (talk), I recommend you leave the varna dispute, and the lede as it is for now and concentrate on adding new content to the classification, and modern status (20th 21st century) of the the GSB communities.I contributed a lot to the Deshastha Brahmin page. You can use that as a template to expand the article. One of the editors on the GSB page  has Sanskritization as his specialty and tackles everything through that lense which for the average wikipedia reader would be of little importance.Anyhow, good luck with editing.Let me know if you need help with sourcing.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @JonathansammyAnyhow I am unable to edit talk page nor that page lock symbol is there at top.please watch this below content.watch out below content and sourced(Oxford,springer,duke and Cambridge),
 * Gaud Saraswat Brahmins(GSB) (also Goud or Gawd) are a Hindu Brahmin community,   who are part of the larger Saraswat Brahmin community that migrated to Konkan from Gaud, as per the Skanda Purana in ancient India. They belong to the Pancha (five) Gauda Brahmana groups.They primarily speak Konkani and it's  various dialects, as their mother tongue.  Ramarao1234 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will try to change but this may take time. Also this can staart an edit war. Thanks for your patience.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @JonathansammyThank you! Ramarao1234 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles
Ekdalian (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Surely I will take care of rules.
 * @Ekdalian Ramarao1234 (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Current research articles by
Irawati karve(1969)-Done Rosalind(2010,2013,2016)-Done Levitt(2017)-Ambiguity Wagle(1979)-Done Deshpande(2010)-High ambiguities but literature review. Gagabhattkrut:Shri shiv Rajyaabhishek prayog-Currently

Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

 * Hi @RegentsParkSock!!Are you sure about this decision?
 * I have mentioned my alternative account in my User page as per the rules of Wikipedia.What’s the issue for this block? Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request with proof
Ramarao1234 (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Share the check user info
Dear @PhilKnight,If check user is confirming my account with other account can you name the account,Isn’t it Rodrigus0? Ramarao1234 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @PhilKnightI have mentioned everything in the user page about alternative account as per wiki policy.Then how is that considered sock?.Let me share some information for you,Newslinger has blocked all the IPs involved in any sort of sock.So how come my IP might have been used by any sock?Please refer the below link.
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar/Archive Ramarao1234 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not going into detail about the checkuser findings. PhilKnight (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhilKnightI know that I am not a sock. What can I do now to prove this ? Ramarao1234 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you post another unblock request so another checkuser can see if I am interpreting the results correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhilKnightThank you, anyhow I’ll raise a new request.Really I am unable to get the issue as i have only 2 accounts. Ramarao1234 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhilKnightHave you seen the page [[Wikipedia
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar]] if the investigation is that genuine then how they categorised that new user(Rajesh Fadnvis) as sock of mine!There should be some flaws isn’t it?If the check user is soo perfect how that user was linked to me ?
 * Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Refer my account User page
Ramarao1234 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)