User talk:Sreejiraj

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

can be reached at sreejiraj at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.73.53 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ezhavas
If you are still interested in talking about the Ezhavas article, could you respond at the talk page? I just want to make sure I have the proper background from the sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vratya project
What happened to "us"? This is why it seems that in collaborative environments, ya gotta go it alone. &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  20:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Manusmriti
You have been re-posting the controversial contents on page, which have been edited/deleted by different editors. The article from where you have taken the translated version is full of mistakes. For example, your mentioning of shalok 2.31 on naming of a person says that a Shudra should be named 'contemptible', while the true meaning should be 'as per work and sympathetic'. Writing the word 'Contemptible' itself is delibrate contempt for the book. There could be some shaloks which may look against the flow of book, but these are not the salient or prominent features, as salient feature remains that the most knowledgable will be given the maximum respect, and least knowledgable will be given least respect but sympathy also. This controversial portion posted by you again and again is being deleted as they are against the salient features of the book. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Please give a link or source to substantiate your point that the word in shlok 2.31 means 'as per work and sympathetic'. I have already given one link/source from where I have sourced my translation. I can give you another link as well. Sreejiraj (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas
Hi, I am sorry but I have had to revert your recent additions to List of Ezhavas. The sources that you provided were circular references, both to other Wikipedia articles and to "books" that clearly state they got their information from Wikipedia (sometimes called mirrors). - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I have reverted your edit at Talk:Caste system in India. Please read WP:CANVASS and please note that the discussion at WT:INB that you link concerns whether BLPs in lists of castes require self-identification - it is not related to whether someone can change their caste etc, although you seem to have some sort of obsession with turning it into that. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done the same with your post at Talk:Kshatriya. If you have made any similar wildly digressive appeals elsewhere then I suggest that you self-revert them. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shall rephrase, thanks.Sreejiraj (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have rephrased. Thanks. Sreejiraj (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that you have been bombarding numerous caste-related talk pages with a revised version. I still think that it is not great. For example, the issue relates solely to living people and this is not made clear. I'll ask someone to review what you've done because it is possible that I am being specious now. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, please do not be unduly worried about this but I have mentioned the above thread regarding the BLP caste issue at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents because I'd rather not trawl around those admins who already have an involvement in India articles. Hopefully, there will be no drama. I appreciate that you mean well and it is quite likely that someone will tell me I'm wrong and it will all be over! WP:ANI is a venue where we can request the assistance of administrators but the main discussion regarding the issue of WP:BLP and caste should continue in the thread at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Sreejiraj (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Caste discussions
I note that you have yet again joined a discussion concerning caste and merely repeated the stuff that has already been rejected by multiple people who have substantial experience of how policy works. Worse, most of what you added was just a copy/paste of irrelevant points previously posted by you and they were WP:TLDR. You may want to re-think this approach because at least one person has already threatened to seek a block because of your disruption. If you continue in your current style, I suspect that they will do just that. You are useless to any argument if you cannot participate in it. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion was going on somewhere else. It was rather unfairly forked without notice to anyone in the discussion. That doesn't really leave me with much choice except to reproduce much of what was said in the first one rather ungracefully in the second one, does it?Sreejiraj (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It did give you a choice: for example, you could have linked a diff and provided a summary. Instead, you have chosen to persist in your original course and, indeed, have now amplified it with yet another massive and largely irrelevant screed that also included a pretty sweeping insult relating to the knowledge of all non-Indian contributors. You are going to lose friends fast here if you are not careful. You are never going to "win" by using Indian legal primary sources because Wikipedia is not India and people can turn legal primary sources into whatever they choose, which is exactly why the world is full of so many lawyers spending so much time arguing the toss about everything & often making a lot of money in the process. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that it may have rubbed some people the wrong way, but that discussion did not have much room left for subtlety, did it? :-)Sreejiraj (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is up to you. If I was in your shoes then I'd be wary of WP:GS/Caste and, believe me, I've seen that used in all sorts of ways when someone is perceived to be "disruptive". - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No issues. Appreciate your concern. Sreejiraj (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Warned under WP:GS/CASTE
Your recent edits at the Village Pump are being discussed at WP:ANI. After reading that discussion, I'm leaving you a formal notice under General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

To avoid further enforcement steps, please observe the normal standards for Wikipedia discussion (including not posting large volumes of material) and be sure that your comments reflect an understanding of Wikipedia policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance that we can try again here? It is obvious to me that you mean well but the difficulty is that in situations such as this, pretty much the only thing that matters on Wikipedia is whether or not your arguments can be supported by policy or can be countered by another policy. WP:BLP is a particularly sensitive area and it is almost impossible to argue that "although BLP says do this, policy X says something else and can over-ride it". You really do need to find a way to justify your position that takes account of the BLP "privacy" provisions. Merely repeating yourself will achieve nothing much and the longer your comments are, the less likely it is that people will read them. I know that this last bit sounds daft but it really is how it works for a lot of people and we even have something that discusses it (see WP:TLDR). It might be helpful to spend a day or so trying to bash out some ideas with like-minded people here and then present them in the main discussion. That discussion is not going to be resolved quickly and, in any case, you could always leave a note there asking for a bit of time to think. I hope this helps in some way. Feel free to ask any questions that you may have. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)