Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Brahmanical See

Vandalism of this page
This page has been repeatedly vandalised by the user Nexxt 1, in violation of Wikipedia's policies (see Vandalism).

(1) The article as it stands (prior to blanking violations) has been fully cited, using citations from peer-reviewed scholarly journals. (2) The page has already been approved for retention by the Wikipedia community, after sock-puppet attempts by the vandal Nexxt 1 posing as "Neel0110" and "DeletionBOT" on 18 May 2007. (3) The vandal is blanking the entire page, replacing it with a single unsourced statement. (4) The vandal purports that the term does not have any meaning, but attributes a self-styled racist meaning to in his/her acts of vandalism. (5) The vandal Nexxt 1 has a demonstrated history of vandalizing other pages, as shown from warnings from multiple users in his/her discussion page. (6) The vandal Nexxt 1 has continued his/her behaviour despite being fully and repeatedly warned, with escalating warnings, including a final warning. Devout 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This articel is the work of your RACISM! No author chauvinistically ever mentioned the term 'Brahmanical See'. Brahmin is a Sanskrit word, then 'ical' is a English extension and 'See' is a Latin word! Nexxt 1

Ongoing Vandalism
After being receiving an initial 24 hour block for vandalising this page, the user Nexxt 1 has reprised vandalism of the page, in violation of Wikipedia's policies (see Vandalism).

(1) The article as it stands (prior to vandalism) has been fully cited, using citations from peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

(2) The vandal Nexxt 1 has been repeatedly added a prod tag to this page, but has fraudulently backdated the start date of the tag to more than five days before the addition of the tag, in an attempt to trigger deletion before his actions could be remedied.

(3) The vandal was fully warned after the first instance of adding a fraudulently backdated tag, but has continued to do so nevertheless.

(4) The vandal has been cautioned during the same time period for his/her actions on other pages.

Devout 13:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Brahmanical See
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brahmanical See, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Brahmanical See.

Bogus references
The "references" for this article were added by here. It looks like he ran a search on JSTOR and took a couple of likely looking citations -- the sum total of his contributions to WP. The Sahu article is available online, and says nothing about "Brahmanacal sees". The Monier-Williams reference looks bogus too. The Peabody-Fuller-Mayer article is only 2 pages: it's probably a note more than an article. These "references" are basically bogus. rudra (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)