User talk:Vinodcyber

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Pareek has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pareek was changed by Vinodcyber (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865631 on 2014-02-23T13:44:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Pareek has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pareek was changed by Vinodcyber (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893237 on 2014-02-28T08:20:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pareek. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pareek
I am sorry but I've had to revert you yet again at Pareek. It is great that you are trying to source some of your additions but you cannot use just anything that you happen to find.

Caste association websites are basically self-published sources and, since caste associations are advocacy groups, they are only reliable for statements about the history and organisation of the association itself, not the caste. Often, there is more than one such association and we know that they sometimes disagree.

The "states" series of The People of India is based almost entirely on the works of pseudo-ethnographers from the Raj era, often copying directly from them without even acknowledging that they are doing so. As such, that series is also unreliable, although the "national" series, which was published by Oxford University Press, is usually considered to be reliable.

Long lists of gotras are pretty trivial anyway but it is impossible for us to determine where you got the information from because there is no clear citation. WP:Citing sources would help you with that. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's really tough finding a right source, when you start challenging everyone. KS Singh was the renown historian and had also worked for ASI. citing his books is if not creditable, how will you create this page. You don't agree to my version... neither there is any source. what now. Vinodcyber (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)