User talk:Srivastava101

March 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have requested the page to be protected from editing for now. You are correct that information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable in reliable, published sources. I hope that you can continue to discuss the problems with the other users on the talk page, and come to a solution, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand, thank you for temporarily protecting the page. Srivastava101 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the issue, editors Dinopce and Pandya101 are misinterpreting sources to change the undisputed social class of this particular caste to that of a higher class. I can try discussing this issue on the talk page, but both editors seem fairly resolute on editing the contents of the article to falsely increase the perceived notoriety of this caste, at the expense of spreading misinformation. Would this be in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines? Srivastava101 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience with this. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't really comment on it. What I can say is that the most important thing in Wikipedia is reliable sources. That doesn't mean though, that just because one source says something, it can be included. We must also follow the principle of neutral point of view, where information is presented in proportion to its prevalence in all reliable sources on the topic. If you think that a certain source is incorrect, the best solution is to provide another more authoritative source that says differently. On the other hand, if you think that other editors are misinterpreting a source, try to explain on the talk page how this is so. In order to avoid edit warring, sometimes it's necessary to put up with incorrect information in the article for a short time, until a consensus can be reached.
 * Sometimes editors may show a particular bias, or try to promote ideas that are not accepted by the majority of reliable sources, and will seem to refuse to listen to reason. In these cases, it's still important to provide reliable sources, and to counter their arguments on the talk page using clear explanations and referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Other uninvolved editors can be asked to review the discussion and help to decide how to proceed, through the processes of dispute resolution. But all of these processes require that a good attempt at communication has been made first, and that the relevant cases for each side have been presented. In other words, while it is always best to try to reach an agreement with involved editors on the talk page, it's not always necessary to convince them, as long as your arguments convince others. After a consensus has been determined through talk page discussion and possibly dispute resolution, if people continue to make edits against the consensus, there can be remedies for that.
 * One more thing, it's important to separate discussion about the subject or content dispute, which belongs on the article talk page, from complaints about a user's behavior, which belong first on user talk pages, and later with discussions with administrators. Just try to calmly present your arguments, and give the others every opportunity to either present valid reasoning, or show themselves to be incapable of following the policies and guidelines. If it's the latter, that will be clear to others who will assess the discsussion later.
 * I see that one of them has responded with "Lines with no source delete only lines with source stay." This is not a convincing argument, and shows that they don't have a good understanding of the neutral point of view policy. Now would be a good time for you to present a detailed explanation, with sources, of why you believe their changes are incorrect. I hope that helps... --IamNotU (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Bhaiya jhoot mat boliyega
Aap Srivastavaji ke ladke nahi hain na?? Kyu Srivastava logo ko badnaam kar rahe?? Pandya101 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Pandya101 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kayasthas
Hello Shrivastava 101,

"I can try discussing this issue on the talk page, but both editors seem fairly resolute on editing the contents of the article to falsely increase the perceived notoriety of this caste, at the expense of spreading misinformation."

Read your message above to one of the moderators.

I don't attempt to do what you think I am trying to do. If you want then,I'll stop writing any additional pieces of information here.

The reason why I reverted your edit"Following the ruling of Patna court,Kayasthas of the region were given kshatriya status." was because the entire page is about CHITRAGUPTAVANSHI KAYASTHAS and not about the Kayasthas as whole. The above Court ruling was for all the 3 sub-groups of Kayasthas and not just about Chitrgupt Kayasthas.

I don't intend to vandalize anything here. Plz let me know if MY THINKING TO REVERT YOUR STATEMENT WAS WRONG IN ANY WAY.

2nd thing that I want to discuss is that the main page of Kayasthas was locked but now it's unlocked. It seems that anyone can make changes to that page. I remember that WHEN THE PAGE WAS LOCKED A FEW DAYS AGO,YOU WERE STILL MAKING CHANGES TO THAT PAGE. It can only mean one thing that you were given some ADDITIONAL RIGHTS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT PAGE WHILE THAT PAGE WAS LOCKED TO OTHER COMMON USERS.

I'd like the wikipedia administrator to again lock the main page of Kayasthas and allow you to keep making changes to it with PROPER REFERENCES AND SOURCES GIVEN.

I just want to make changes to the Chitraguptavanshi page. :)

Note:I hope your misunderstanding towards me,might have gone into thin air. :) Dinopce (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please get the main page of Kayasthas LOCKED AT ANY COST(if it's in your hands). Thanks in advance Dinopce (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Also,if you can please save the entire content of the main Kayastha page in case somebody tries to vandalize it in the meantime. So,you can revert it Dinopce (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a moderator on any of the articles related to Kayasthas. If you would like, you can add information on a semi-protected page by providing proper citations and describing what you intend to edit on a certain page.


 * Can you please provide proper evidence of the Kayasthas being recognized as Brahmins. I noticed Pandya101 had deleted all sources providing proper evidence of Kayasthas belonging to the Kshatriya (warrior) class. The citation could still be used to infer that all Kayasthas, including Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas, belong to the Kshatriya class. The deleted information included all valid sources which were agreed upon by previous editors agreeing on the Kshatriya status of Kayasthas. The deletion however, was not agreed upon and was instead replaced with a different source with a misinterpreted line claiming Brahma Kayasthas are "clearly said to be Brahmin". The Kshatriya status of Kayasthas coincides well with the Kayasthas eating habits, including the consumption of meat and alcohol, which goes against the Brahminical practices of vegetarianism. I understand that Pandya101 would like to have Kayasthas recognized as Brahmins, but this goes against the decision of the Patna high court's ruling, which was formerly found in the citations for the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas article before deletion. Brahmanical recognition of Kayasthas also goes against Puranical evidence if you consider the Puranas a valid source, and confirmation from modern day Brahmins, who agree Kayasthas, specifically those of north India, are to be recognized as Kshatriyas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTztV6uAs5s).


 * I have been been researching genetic studies which relate individuals with north Indian Kayastha surnames with Brahmins (primarily through similar haplogroups and overall genetic relatedness). This may support that Kayasthas are closely related to Brahmins, but still genetically distinct from the local Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Brahmin populations. I have been reluctant on adding this information to any of the articles since I have yet to see another instance of modern genetics being utilized to predict a ethno-religious groups caste, but if I can form a consensus with certain wiki editors on this addition, I will include it in the Wikipedia article.


 * Please understand before making any edits on the Wikipedia articles, there should be an unbiased and civil discussion on the article's talk page, and all editors must provide proper sources with the contents they wish to include in the article. Thanks. Srivastava101 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

I've cleared the confusion between Chitraguptavanshi and Chitragupta words in the talk page of the Kayastha page. Would like to continue our talk over there from now onwards.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayastha#Chitragupta_vs_Chitraguptavanshi_confusion...

Thanks Dinopce (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusion btw Chitragupta Kayasthas vs Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas
Hello Sir,

I know that the links provided by you contained the actual word "Chitragupta Kayasth" instead of the word "Chitraguptavanshi Kayasth" but if you'll put it that way,then the 2nd para of the "Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas" contains the word "Gaur" as one of the sub-castes of Kayasthas in the 1st link with reference provided.

Then in the 6th para, it's written "While some scholars identify 'Gauda' Kayasthas with Bengali Kayasthas"-- This exact word has been given in the reference link provided. Again there is confusion between "Gaur and Gauda" even though LINKS AND REFERENCES FOR BOTH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

MY REASON:Continuous usage of different words even though it means the same thing will lead to confusion amongst the greenhorns who want to know about the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas.

I've made edits in this page.

Please let me know if the LINKS OF REFERENCES are showing 'Chitragupta Kayastha' instead of 'Chitraguptavanshi Kayasth' in the main Kayasth page.

I'll add my links over there which contain the word 'Chitraguptavanshi' instead of 'chitragupta'

Note:I've got no intent to vandalise any content written by you or others in that page or any other page. I want to contribute by making minor edits and want to edit the confusing material over there.

PS: I hope,I've made myself clear here

Namaste Dinopce (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

I've created a discussion page regarding this in the main Kayasthatalk page. Please see my explanation over there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayastha#Chitragupta_vs_Chitraguptavanshi_confusion... Dinopce (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages
I noticed the discussion above between and Srivastava101, and would like ask that discussion of article content take place on the talk page of the article, not on user talk pages. You're welcome to exchange personal messages via your own talk pages, and to discuss articles in general. However, because Wikipedia works on the basis of collaboration and consensus, the formal discussion of how to improve an article and its sources should be public and easily accessible to all editors of the article, on its talk page. It's also imporant in the case that dispute resolution is needed, because other editors will assess the arguments and sources presented, and they can't be expected to search for other discussions on user talk pages. Maybe each of you could summarize the most important points of the above discussion on the article's talk page? Thanks for your understanding.

PS, to clear up a couple of points, I'm not a moderator or admin, I'm a volunteer who has been working on Wikipedia for many years, and I sometimes try to help newer users get aquainted with how things work here. Also, with regard to this comment: Please understand before making any edits on the Wikipedia articles, there should be an unbiased and civil discussion on the article's talk page, and all editors must provide proper sources with the contents they wish to include in the article., it's not always necessary to discuss things before making edits. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and make any edit they believe will improve an article. If there is no objection, then consensus is assumed. However, if an edit is reverted for valid reasons, then discussion on the talk page is expected before continuing to make the same edit. --IamNotU (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for enlightening me.:)

Will carry out future talks in the article page.

Once again,I'd like you to show the following to some moderator or admin EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT ONE.

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but from a 2-3 days ago, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I hope that it's an error made by you guys. So,I hope that you lock that page to prevent vandalism!!

Note:The rights to make changes to that page should be given to TRUSTWORTHY USERS. If Wikipedia feels that I'm not a trustworthy user,then don't give me access to make changes in that page.

Note1:The page "Brahmin" & "Kayastha" are prone to get vandalised by people of other castes as these two are one of the most hated castes here in India by people of lower castes. Wanted to give you this information. Kayasthas are more or less like the "protestants" of Hinduism(similar to the Protestants and Catholics of Christianity). (Protestants=Kayastha Catholic=Brahmin) - Not true in all cases but in some.

The above is for your knowledge as you're a foreigner and will not understand the politics behind it.

PS: Please LOCK THE "Kayastha" page and give access to genuine users only.

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! Dinopce (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your understanding about using article talk pages. About locking the pages you mention, there has been no recent change in the page protection level of Kayastha. What happened was that your account became autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits, allowing you to edit it. Most articles don't have any page protection, because one of the most important principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, even without registering an account. However, because that article has in the past attracted many disruptive edits from IPs and brand-new users, as you described, it does require being autoconfirmed. The Brahmin article has the most extreme level of protection, requiring extended confirmed status, which is 30 days and 500 edits, because it has attracted a very high level of disruption. Once you make a few hundred more edits, you'll be able to edit that article too. There is no mechanism on Wikipedia to grant page editing access only to specific individual users.
 * You're free to make a request at Requests for page protection to increase the protection level of the Kayastha article. However, please read carefully the Protection policy first. Page protection is never used just to restrict access only to recognized or trusted editors. It's only used as an emergency measure when a page is currently and actively under persistent attack from vandals or other disruptive editing, and there is no other choice. The protection is added for as short a time as possible. It's only extended or its level increased if the previous protection is shown to be ineffective. In my opinion there's not enough evidence of recent disruption to the Kayastha page, so a request to increase the protection level to extended confirmed will be rejected. On the other hand, if there is evidence of edit-warring without talk page discussion, the article may be completely protected from all editing for a short time until a solution is found, as happened the other day in the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha article.
 * If you have further questions about this or other general matters, a good place to ask is at the Teahouse, as Srivastava101 is probably not interested in having their personal talk page filled up, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Kayasthas are also an off-shoot of Brahmins who were the ruling class.

Brahmin varna(category)=The learned Kshatriya varna=The warriors

Kayasthas are a combination of Brahmin and Kshatriya and hence known as Brahm-Kshatriya. This is why I want the Kayasthas page to have the extended 30 day protection as well.

The miscreants who want to vandalise the Brahmin page would also like to vandalise the Kayastha page.

Your words---"In my opinion there's not enough evidence of recent disruption to the Kayastha page, so a request to increase the protection level to extended confirmed will be rejected."

I hope that my reason is clear.

Is there any way in which I can ask the wikipedia admins to provide an extended confirmed protection to that page by sending the issue to an admin's e-mail address instead of following your method? Dinopce (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please ask your questions at the Teahouse, thanks. If you can't find an answer there, you can contact me on my talk page. --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks :) Dinopce (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kayasthas are fallen Brahmins who belong to the Kshatriya class, hence they now partake in non-vegetarianism and drinking, although some individuals retain the original Vedic instructions and practice the orthodox Brahmanical system because they have Brahmin gotras (patrilineages). This does not make Kayasthas Brahmin because the group as a whole does not follow Brahmanical traditions and several sources recognize their clear distinctiveness to other Brahmin groups. It is preferred to recognize Kayasthas as Kshatriyas as per modern Brahmins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTztV6uAs5s), compared to a now-defunct council of Brahmins from Benares. Srivastava101 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Sir,the video that you pasted above doesn't help much. Nothing is mentioned clearly about Kayasths and their varna. Also,Gotras have got nothing to with it in my opinion. Kayasthas come in Kashyap gotra. Kashyap was a Rishi(Sage).He might have accepted Kayasthas as well as other castes under him. Even they should follow the same orthodox Brahmanical system like Kayasthas.
 * I've a few personal questions if you don't mind me asking since the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page was reverted by you.Before I ask my questions, I noticed one error over there. The common sub-castes section in that page contains the Ambashtha. That word shouldn't be provided with a link. The page Ambashtha on wikipedia is not about Ambashtha Kayasthas but is about Ambashtha word in general. That page contains anything which goes by the name of Ambastha. eg:Ambastha in Manu,Ambashtha Kayasthas etc etc. Providing a link from Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page or Kayastha page to that page will confuse the readers on wikipedia as they'll think that Ambashtha Kayasthas are a result of Brahmin father and Vaishya mother. You can't expect people to know the difference between Ambastha in Manu and Ambasth subcaste of Kayasthas.


 * Everything has been deleted! All citations,sources everything.
 * No idea what to say now. Dinopce (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you google search the term "Kayastha" or "Kayasthas", you will see on the left side of the page under classifications, "Brahmin/Kshatriya" (https://imgur.com/a/odP50lq). Most people don't use Wikipedia, they rely on the first thing that pops up on their Google searches. I hope if it's any consolation that Kayasthas are rightfully labelled as Brahmin/Kshatriyas to the public eye. The only reason the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page was protected was because of the edit-warring and misuse of information. I have no doubt in my mind that Kayasthas are in fact Brahmin/Kshatriya hybrids, however editors should put in their time and effort to find the correct sources to validate these facts, or else it is not a proper Wikipedia article. The page won't be open for editing until July I think, in the meanwhile, I'm doing research in government databases, JSTOR, and other validated scholarly works to find more instances of Kayasthas being definitively classified as a Brahmin-Kshatriya group, I suggest you do the same for the meanwhile. Srivastava101 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that all sources were false. Some of them were genuine. There are two sides to it: Science and scriptures. Chitraguptavanshi Kayasths are Brahmin! Kayasthas could also perform the duties of a warrior. This is why people consider them to be Brahma-Kshatriya.
 * I'm not sure about hybridity. Kayasthas are as old as Brahmins as far as I know. Brahmins who started to eat meat and drink alcohol as ruling class might have had some internal politics between them and the non-meat eaters due to several reasons. They might have got divided.
 * Sitush has made a change in the Origin Section: The first historical reference to the term kayastha, not necessarily related to the modern community, comes from a Mathura inscription of the Kushan Emperor Vasudeva I, dated to around 171-172 CE, which records the gift of an image of the Buddha by a Kayastha Śramaṇa. [6]
 * If it was not necessarily related to the modern community,then who was it related to? Are there any other Kayasthas in the Indian sub-continent? He just made that change without telling anyone who it was related to. The fact that this word was there in 171-172 CE should be a proof in itself that Kayasthas were there at that time,otherwise why would somebody coin this word?
 * If you'll think in terms of science,then how did the Brahmins suddenly came out of nowhere? We were all Neanderthals,then suddenly we became Brahmins,Kayasthas etc. Both Brahmins and Kayasthas are old !
 * I don't think that all the sources should have been deleted from those articles. It'd have taken people,years,to add those over there.
 * If you'll come after the page lockdown,then do discuss this with him!
 * My request to you is that please don't just write in this article in terms of modern science but also write while taking into account the historical evidences. Take both sides into consideration and then write what you want to write with proper source, of course.
 * Also,the Raj Era source has a loophole. I have already explained it in the Chitraguptavanshi Talk page. Sitush deleted all the sources but he didn't delete that book whose name I mentioned over there.Just read the review of this book in the link below,you'll know what I'm talking about.It's the same book that I mentioned over there.
 * https://www.amazon.in/Formation-Colonial-State-India-1760-1860/dp/0415704472
 * Review from the above link.
 * "This book makes it obvious that the author needs to do more research. The books shows that the writer (Bellenoit from US Naval Academy) does not have a good understanding of the hindu caste system. For example, there were several groups - some of these groups were warriors(Maharashtra) but Dr.Bellenoit, sitting half-way across the world, seems to be completely ignorant. Secondly, some of these groups were formally classified as Kshatriyas by the religious hindu leaders as early as the 16th century but Bellenoit seems to have not studied that. Other than in north India, these groups held very high positions but again Bellenoit does not know that. He also references books by some British Ethnographers like Steele (who were completely ignorant of Hinduism and have been considered unreliable) instead of British Historians like Grand Duff or Indian historians. Bellenoit also lacks sensitivity and empathy when writing about people. It shows that Bellenoit probably never read much about Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, Satyendra Nath Bose etc.."
 * It's not a well-researched book! It's a joke. It also contains a lot of Raj Era names. Sitush has deleted Raj Era names from other books but he hasn't deleted this book from the list AND THE RAJ ERA ETHNOGRAPHERS WHOSE NAMES ARE MENTIONED IN IT.
 * Raj Era or not,it should be thoroughly researched. The assumption that all Raj Era sources and the books written at that time were not accurate is wrong,in my opinion. Competent and incompetent people are born in every generation! Nobody can read anyone's mind as to why he wrote what he wrote.


 * Kayasthas don't claim high caste status as written by Utcursh in this talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayastha(Sitush is deleting citations,why?),it's just the politics that's happening in wikipedia that's making any other castes wrong. This is what I feel. I hope that there is no internal politics going on here.
 * Will come back after some time in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your following discussion with Sitush.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chitraguptavanshi_Kayastha#Chitraguptavanshi_Kayasthas_are_not_a_caste%3F

You haven't provided the link after '@'. You've simply written his(Sitush's) name!

He might not have got the message. Dinopce (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kayastha contribution
Hello Sir,

Please keep on contributing to the Kayastha page in your spare time with neutral and positive articles.

Namaste. Dinopce (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As an editor, my only wish is to partake in including accurate information available to the public. Biased writing, grammatical errors, and relentless edit-warring and sock puppetry had previously contributed to my decision to not edit on this page. I have also seen the negative comments made towards me both in Hindi and English by you and Pandya101, which had previously finalized my decision to quit editing this page for the time being. I would suggest not to estimate your self worth on the basis of an ancient, archaic system and try including information that is factually accurate, while also preserving the dignity of readers and editors who may belong to this caste. Srivastava101 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir,I don't have any problem with you or anyone editing in Wikipedia. One of the motto of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is made by people like you".That includes all of us irrespective of caste,religion,race,skin colour etc. Sorry if I might have done something unintentionally to hurt your sentiments.