User talk:Nittawinoda

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Nittawinoda, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Solar Dynasty

Hello, I am deleting your work mentioned under Origins in the page of Solar Dynasty. You are clearly misinterpreting the facts and creating your own theories. For example, the book says "Iksvakus are not Dravidians

The Iksvakus was the great pre-Aryan Bharatiya race, Pargiter has tried to establish that the Iksyakus should be equated with Dravidians. 32 The Puragas do not know any Dravida tribe, It appears that the Dravidians had not gained any importance by, the Puranic. age circa 30Q. A. D."

and also

But he has not adduced any evidence to prove that the Dravidians existed in Bharata before the Aryan invasions. He has also failed to unearth any Dravidian tradition to prove that the Manavas or Iksvakus were Dravidians."

while your work says - The dynasty takes its name after king Ikshvaku who was the son of Satyavrata also called Shraddhadeva Manu, the king of Dravida kingdom.[6] As per the Vedas, Ikshvaku was the protector of the five territories of Panchajanah who were non-sacrificing pre-Aryan and non-Aryan people. The Atharvaveda and Brahmanas associate the Ikshvakus with the non-Aryan peoples, that is they are different from the Vedic Aryans who composed hymns like Rig Veda.[7][8] F. E. Pargiter has equated the Ikshvakus with the Dravidian peoples.[9]

Can you relate to even one of your references. (Redacted). I am removing that part, just because you are Dravid does not make everyone Dravid (Redacted). I will also inform other admins (Redacted) JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Venkateswara

I undid your addition of Vengadam to Venkateswara as it was unsourced. The source mentions Venkata, but not Vengadam.
Per wp:verifiability, any significant content must wp:cite a wp:reliable source (RS). See help:referencing for beginners. Use of one's own knowledge is not verifiable, and must not be used. See wp:no original research. As most anyone can edit Wikipedia, the only path to credibility is through citations. Please help keep articles well-cited so they don't become trash articles. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Overlink

Don't link common words such as nation / nationality. See above link. --RHcosm (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Talk:Kulottunga I/GA1

The review has been started up again by the reviewer; you will want to see what they added, and respond to it. (You were pinged, but under your old account name, so I've posted here to let you know about it.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the heads-up. I've added the Review page to my watchlist. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nittawinoda. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Muthuraja

Muthuraja or Mutharaiyar are Tamil Caste around Trichy Region TamilNadu.Cannot confuse Mudiraj.Mudiraj is a Telugu caste around Telangana. Not relation between Muthurja and Mudiraj.Muthuraja is a King of Mutharaiyar Dynastry AD600 to AD1000.But Mudiraj main occupation is fishing.So cannot merge to Mudiraj and Muthuraja. And Paluvattaraiyar is Not a kerala this is a Ariyalur District TamilNadu so cannot remove the Paluvettaraiyar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkalaiarasan86 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jkalaiarasan86:, you need to provide sources to show that Muthuraja are same as Paluvettaraiyar or the relation if any between the two commmunities. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, so your personal beliefs do not matter here. Please see WP:VERIFY. So until you come up with references, the Paluvettaraiyar section will continued to be challenged and removed. According to the Anbil plates of Sundara Chola, the Paluvettaraiyar originated from Kerala. Please refer source [1]. Now it is your turn to come up with references. Nittawinoda (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghunatha Kilavan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thirumangai alvar

@Nittawinoda: thirumangai alvar is Kallar right.But not a Kallar caste. cannot confuse Kallar(Thief) and Kallar caste.He was stolen by his intention to serve his devotees.ok but thirumangai alvar caste is Mutharaiyar --Jkalaiarasan86 (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jkalaiarasan86: Source for "Kallar caste" [2]. So maintain neutral version. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Udaiyar

Why do you mess up a lot of articles and the caste 106.203.29.94 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

- Sitush (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Vanniyar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• If you revert again any time soon at Vanniyar you will be in big trouble, although frankly you already should be given the alert above and you clear unwillingness to follow a host of policies, guidelines and common practises, eg: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD and WP:NPA. Sitush (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by an arbitration decision

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Per your recent edits to Vanniyar. Usually there is no trouble if you are patient enough to wait for consensus first. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: - Hello Admin, Sitush (talk · contribs) and his cronies are pushing their POV on article Vanniyar. Sitush has simply removed all my edits to the article terming it as caste glorification. Sitush is all ok for accepting sources that favor his POV while he terms my sources as unreliable when the sources present a view contrary to his opinion.Recently I added a view as stated by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert but then he termed as unreliable supposedly because it belongs to the colonial period. On the other hand he is ok with adding material by various historians who based their views on events that transpired during the colonial era if they agree with his view point. The general modus operandi of Sitush seems to be forcing an edit war where he forces other user to revert an article back and forth and then immediately goes and tattletales to some admin regarding the edit war. What kind of spirit is Wikipedia promoting? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sitush is very familiar with the sourcing issues on caste articles and his recommendations are often respected by administrators. Gustav Solomon Oppert did most of his work in the nineteenth century, and that sometimes is flagged as an issue for caste articles. If you think that Oppert's work has modern scholarly credibility and want to appeal you could consider the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanniyar

However looking at your edit, it seems to me it is a tad non sequitish, what does this add to the article we need to know?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also comment on content not user motivations, raising POV does your cause no good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Dr. Oppert's view lends credence to the opinion that the Pallis(aka Vanniyar) are the Pallavas. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See if you can find a copy of Untouchability: A Historical Study Upto 1500 A.D. : with Special Reference to Tamil Nadu, it has this "higher class Pallavas who accepted Cola sovereignty and joined the ranks of the Cola army came to be designated as Pallis".Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This [[3]] covers it quite well, it is certainly a claim they have made, and I think can be added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first example is WP:OR with regard to the actual article; your second is not reliable. It really isn't helpful spreading this stuff all over umpteen forums. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So it does not say that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Nittawinoda. I have answered your question on my talkpage, but I'd probably better post the warning part of it here as well, to make sure you see it. I'm sorry to say your argument shows a depth of incomprehension. If you continue to edit the article based on such stuff, you will soon find yourself banned or blocked. Please listen better when experienced editors such as Sitush try to explain Wikipedia's rules and principles to you. Stop using offensive, bad-faith-assuming edit summaries, and stop accusing good-faith editors of vandalism or talking about "cronies" (without the slightest evidence) and nonsense like that. Have a read of our no personal attacks and civility policies. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: - you need to stop throwing your weight around and review my edit to the Vanniyar that started the edit-war. Atleast one other editor Slatersteven (talk · contribs) thinks that the source is good enough to be used as a reference here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gustav_Solomon_Oppert_work_a_reliable_source_?. The quantity of edits does not make someone a good contributor and I've seen enough edits of Sitush (talk · contribs) to know that he is pushing a POV. If you continue to harass me or threaten me with a block, I will have to take this issue to higher authorities as you seem to be in collusion with Sitush (talk · contribs). The modus operandi clearly seems to be Sitush forcing the opponent to revert an article back and forth and then asking for your help to block or ban the editor and then you stepping in under the pretext of restoring normalcy by blocking the opponent. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. you are mistaken in your pattern recognition. Why, so far today alone, based on my reports and comments, TonyBallioni has blocked about five accounts, JJMC89 has blocked one, and Ymblanter has put protection measures in place on an article. I also think you misunderstand the position of Slatersteven on the article talk page, the associated WP:RSN thread and above: you and he alone are not going to overturn a longstanding consensus regarding Raj era sources.

You are correct that I do often turn to Bishonen's talk page. However, that is because we do not at present have many administrators who are prepared to assist with the Indic area - Abecedare, SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark, for example, are all on breaks - and posting at Bishonen's page, or that of someone such as Drmies, is handy because they have many watchers and thus it is almost like an informal noticeboard. I'm not sure if EdJohnston's comments on this current matter were sparked by events there but it is certainly possible.

If you still think that there is some sort of unpleasant and unhealthy team-work going on then I suggest you file a report at WP:ANI. But please read WP:BOOMERANG first. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you think he misunderstands about my position?Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous account

Hi, was Nittavinoda (talk · contribs) also your account? - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nittawinoda has stated it on their userpage. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC).

Ah, thanks. Missed that. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as advertised. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reg. Collaboration

Hi Niitawinoda,

Could you please send your email id, thanks for your contribution for Vanniyar Page, i want to discuss few more things with you.

Surya

Welcome @Suryavarman01: - I noticed a comment by admin Bishonen (talk · contribs) on your talk page about collaborating outside of Wikipedia, something about WP:MEAT, check [4]. I am still unclear about this policy and how wikipedia perceives offline collaboration. So let us interact here for now. I would also appreciate your opinion on the issues being discussed in Vanniyar talk. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me in this context, Nittawinoda. The invitation from 2014 that you saw on User talk:Suryavarman01 to discuss privately how to "handle" opponents was a pretty clear attempt at conspiracy and meatpuppetry, and therefore I warned User:MeNaagesh about it. I'm not sure what Suryavarman01's intentions are here, but the combination of a request for your e-mail, with a mention of your edits on Vanniyar and especially with the word "collaboration" in the header, looks a little worrying. That said, there is no prohibition against users e-mailing each other. If you wish, you can register your e-mail in your Preferences, under "User profile". I see Suryavarman01 has already done so, since the link "Email this user" appears in the left-hand sidebar on his page, under "Tools". (You probably can't see it, since your own e-mail isn't enabled.) If you enable it, you will be able to e-mail with other users without putting your e-mail address out in public, which is never a good idea. Please be aware, though, that it's better to disuss content issues in public on Wikipedia, frankly and transparently. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

say who it is by not who they quote

If a source is by X, but the quote Y the source is X, not Y. If a source surmised or extrapolates from Y it is still by X. Your edit here [[5]] can be said to be misrepresenting the sources as you claim it is by Hiltebeitel when it is not, it summarizes him.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your contribution, hope you did lot of research in caste and culture of Tamil Nadu, but I am seeing lot of your changes are reverted so trying to understand what went wrong in your addition, why it was removed ? →§  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 

Thanks Suryavarman01 (talk · contribs). Supposedly the Vanniyars of medieval period are different from the modern Vanniyar caste. The other editor claims that the Pallis renamed themselves as Vanniyar in order to appropriate the latter's history. The other reason is because references from the British Colonial period are supposedly not valid. These were the reasons given by the other editor. I personally feel that my edits were removed because some people cannot stand the glorification of a caste that they don't belong to so they come up with incredible reasons such as these. I also got the drift that there are a few other editors hanging around who are bent upon adding negative content to the article with the intention of showing the Vanniyars in a bad light. I was also surprised that in spite of the high number of viewers very few came forward and voiced their dissent against adding negative info. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point. "Adding negative info" is not necessarily wrong. Wikipedia is not censored and should strive to cover all aspects of a subject, including aspects that may be unattractive in the eyes of some people. It is no better to add only positive information as to add only negative - the idea is that we should reflect what reliable sources say and both say and present it in as neutral a manner as possible. Sometimes the issue of weight arises, and that can be a tricky thing to understand for people new to the project, but in any event, in my experience, that is mostly applied to biographies of living people. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

conflating issues

It is not helpful to make talk page posts that discus different issues. A source not supporting X is not the same as a source being rejected. It just confuses the issue and leads to deviations. Please try and stick to one issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore that ^^. You are confused for a variety of reasons but the movement in the thread from etymology to what the Maravars were known for was an entirely logical process for anyone with half a brain, based on my opening comment there. I asked why something was removed, gave my thoughts as to several different reasons, and you responded accordingly. It was fine. If someone can't follow the movement in such a short thread, they shouldn't be getting involved in discussions. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

OK if you think all of what he said was on topic I am fine with that. So Nittawinoda ignore what I said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Maravar

Did you actually read the sources? - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that this topic ban now appeals to you

For your long-term disregard of sources on pages related to caste and social groups, I have decided, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the terms of this community discussion, to impose the following sanction on you:

You have been indefinitely banned from making any edits to pages related to caste and social groups. I'm afraid I've had enough of your long-term disregard of sources, Nittawinoda, as for instance here, where the ridiculous edit summary ("do you even know when the medieval period is?") strongly suggests that you're prepared to keep it up indefinitely and have little respect for other editors. Please look up WP:TBAN for a clear explanation of what a topic ban is; it means you're banned from the topic on all pages: not just articles but also talkpages and user talkpages, discussion boards, etc. You are free to edit the rest of Wikipedia.

This sanction has been logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction to the community at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me on my talk page, before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. If you appeal and the appeal is declined, you may not appeal again until six months have passed. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 10:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of AN to appeal your topic ban is permitted. Abuse of that space to launch more attacks on other editors is not. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nittawinoda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked by Acroterion (talk · contribs) while I've been trying to appeal my topic ban here [6]. Acroterion wrongly accuses me of attacking other editors while I've merely been stating my side of the story in noticeboard. This amounts to silencing me as I have posted some valid diffs that proves collusion between admin Bishonen and user Sitush. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Requests that discuss the behavior of others are not considered. Even leaving that aside, your recent comments were indeed personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Any appeal must be about what you did, not what the other boys did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Pallava origins

Dear Nittawinoda,

I am supposing you have perused my arguments. If you indeed have, then what's your opinion on the same? Do you find them convincing? Have I laid out all the requisite facts? I'd be grateful if you also point out the flaws in it, except for certain gratuitously rhetorical comments that I'd made, which I'd beseech you to overlook.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27:, I have replied on the Pallava talk page. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nittawinoda,

This is with regards to the recent exchanges that have taken place on the talk page. I request you to not tag anyone, and this is in good faith. Doesn't the lexicon used by RVin341 and LovSLif seem uncannily similar?

Destroyer27 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Pallava dynasty

Please take a look at the note I left LovSLif since some of it would be useful for you too. For you, I would particularly emphasize sticking with high quality sources and not starting new discussions/sections while a topic is still being discussed. Abecedare (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: duly noted. FYI, I quoted from some of the same sources which are used in the recent versions of the article Pallava dynasty. For example, I quoted a source by a author called K.R Subramanian. But moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) has labelled that as unreliable [7]. Accordingly I have removed it from the article page. Similarly, I had quoted from Gabriel-Jouveau Dubreil elsewhere and Kautilya3 labelled it as very old. Now, this source is also used in the article but I am unclear whether it is passable or if it should be binned. Nittawinoda (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Older sources, such as Jouveau-Dubreuil, are best avoided and supplanted by more recent high-quality sources as far as possible. Sometimes it is useful to present older pioneering work in an area in a historiographic-context to explain to the reader how ideas about the subject's history evolved over time (for example, discussing James Tod work on the people of Rajasthan, or Max Müller's work on Sanskrit texts) although this too needs to be based upon how WP:HISTRS-compliant sources treat the subject and those older sources. See also the second para of the note I had left LovSLif earlier. I haven't taken a deep enough look at the Pallava dynasty sources to say off-hand if this applies to Jouveau-Dubreuil but Kautilya3 is an old-hand at these matters and should be able to provide more particular and nuanced guidance. Of course, you don't have have to accept their word in every case, and if you have serious concerns you can raise questions about a particular source at WP:RSN. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Abe. Nittawinoda, note that K. R. Subramanian is from the same Raj era and I have mentioned it when the other editor presented it as a source.

On another note, I would appreciate if you can stop needling the other editor by raising issues about "Telugu". You know very well that Telugu wasn't used for historical records in that period. If you didn't know, you are welcome to check the Telugu language page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Abecedare:, As mentioned above [8], I removed K.R Subramanian after moderator Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) labelled it as unreliable [9]. Now the other user has reverted my changes and reinserted this unreliable source [10]. What is your take on this behavior? Nittawinoda (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nittawinoda, it is best not to edit the disputed content while the discussion is ongoing. Moreover, I should note that you have selectively deleted one source, while other Raj-era sources and non-HISTRS are still present in the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tirupati

Hi Nittawinoda, I have undid the changes you made on Ancient history regarding Tondaman in Tirupati page. It is legend that Tondaman built that temple as per any RS and is not history. The content on Tondaman is already added under Legend of Tirumala. Since you have better knowledge on this, I need your help in improving Legend of Tirumala page with more references. aggi007(talk) 06:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aggi007: It is okay as I added this info about Tondaiman building the first structure for Vishnu because another editor had added that it was a buddhist temple [11] originally. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

By LovSLif (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dummy edits

Could you explain your edits on 1000s BC (decade), 18th century BC, and 28th century BC. I see no actual change in display. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So, why did you do them, and is there any reason I shouldn't summarily revert them? See Help:Dummy edit for essentially the only reasons such edits should be done, although whitespace-changing edits may be done in conjunction with other edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban commuted to indefinite 1RR restriction for caste edits

Hi, Nittawinoda. The people who commented on your topic ban appeal here all liked the way you have adhered to the ban, and have constructively edited other areas. Therefore, your topic ban from pages related to caste and social groups has been commuted to an indefinite WP:1RR restriction for all edits related to caste and social groups, as logged here. Please note that this restriction applies not just to caste pages, but to any edits you make that have to do with caste and/or social groups. If you're in doubt, please ask (for example me or Vanamonde) before reverting. Self-reverts and reverts of obvious vandalism are exempted from the restriction. Obvious vandalism means edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. When in doubt, do not revert. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

Thanks @Bishonen: and thank you @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, QEDK, and Winged Blades of Godric: all for the support. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 17:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

Golla (caste)

Did you actually read the sources? - In inscription it was clearly noted that Krishnadevaraya is Yadava. Gollas are called Yadavas but u made a wrong edit. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yadava Golla are same

http://www.bcmbcmw.tn.gov.in/obc/faq/andhrapradesh.pdf. Bro iam respecting u very much but se the above then u will understand it .In Andra pradesh,Telangana and Karnataka the term "Yadava" only denotes Golla You can check it Golla is the synonym of Yadava. So please brother,read A.P,Telangana,Karnataka caste list. In community certificate too Golla as noted as Yadava. Before making any edits please make a deep research on it bro Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Mahapurna moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mahapurna, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck:, I have improved the article by adding citations. Please review and move it to article space. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I created a new one with appropriate citations. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

தவரான தகவல்களை பதிவிடவேண்டாம்

தேவேந்திர குல வேளாளர் சமுகம் ஒன்றும் Harishpranovhk (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

வேளாளர் சமுகம் வேறு Harishpranovhk (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Harishpranovhk: Vellalar is only an umbrella term for various castes. Anyone can become a Vellalar. I noticed [12] that you have removed sourced content from the Vellalar article page which includes the views of Maraimalai Adigal. I suggest you review the source before jumping to conclusions. Anyways let us take this discussion to the Talk:Vellalar page to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. Nittawinoda (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you creating the fake history or some fake knowledge. Kindly see this below link https://youtube.com/watch?v=aKeDGWzl9mw&feature=youtu.be Harishpranovhk (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahapurna (February 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mahapurna and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mahapurna, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: I have trimmed the Mahapurna article that you had reviewed and moved to Draft version. Please review the article now Draft:Mahapurna and move it to article space if it seems okay. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed and accepted. Thank you for cooperating! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahapurna has been accepted

Mahapurna, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zarathustra (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please edit with valid references

Please do not edit articles with out providing valid resources , you seem to be editing articles and posting your views

For example: what is the proof The Kongu Vellalar were inhabitants of the Kongu country since atleast the 10th century CE.[4] , There are many other communities in Kongu country , Please do not put your personal views in articles and provide references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinitasimhan (talk • contribs) 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bharatas (tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

About Sri Vaishnavism

You have much more knowledge than me, this is not a correction but i would like to express myself, in your same article you quote Ramanuja: There is no reason, stated Ramanuja, to prefer one part of a scripture and not other, the whole of the scripture must be considered on par.[43][44] One cannot, according to Ramanuja, attempt to give interpretations of isolated portions of any scripture. Rather, the scripture must be considered one integrated corpus, expressing a consistent doctrine.[43] The Vedic literature, asserted Ramanuja, mention both plurality and oneness, therefore the truth must incorporate pluralism and monism, or qualified monism.[43]

When i read a real truth like for the Sri Sampradaya the devas are no other than a manifestation of Sriman Narayan one thing come to my mind and its that without the devotion and certain knowledge this affirmation could be misunderstood, because people tend to analize things with their minds and when for them everything becomes contradictory...is like in a religion s bazaar, im not criticising not judging your work, wich is amazing, but i have learned that we sould be not afraid of express ourselves. I think if the point is , even we can t understand with the mind, not only the devas but each person deep inside you can find Krishna, but that for me it s not that the Lord playing each role make lose the deepness of that, the richness of it, the plurality of it, the oneness of it comparing with everyone has an atma, the grace of it. So with my own limitation im trying to express that i would love if you would implement some changes in that way, but if not it s okay, im even don t know if you are a religious person or not. You do an amazing work. Nice to speak to you... Vishnu Das Vishnu Das - RE (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Vishnu Das - RE:, I am not clear which edit of mine you are referring to or what changes you want me to implement. Are you sure you got the right user? Nittawinoda (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bharata (Mahabharata) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kuru and Puru

Maravar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kallar

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bharata (Mahabharata), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kuru and Puru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Chola

Hi, this edit looks dodgy, not helped by the edit summary. Your first source is self-published, another has no page number, and others look to be very obscure. I suspect you had built a house of cards there, synthesising material to get a desired outcome. I have reverted for now - feel free to provide relevant quotes from the reliable sources on the article talk page & thus obtain consensus to reinstate. Obviously, the first source is not reliable, and some others may not be (Ramaswamy is definitely ok). - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving discussion to article talk page [13] to obtain consensus. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thondai Mandala Vellalar

On what content, You added Delete tag to Thondaimandala Vellala page? Is grouping is a criteria for deletion? Do you add the same tag to Vellalars, Mukkulothors as grouping? You need to concern about Periyarist tag of me. I’m not creating tensions between here. It is you who doesn’t know anything and added a tag as you like. Stop this behaviour. Perreiyarist (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Periyarist:, as you already may be aware, I have requested an uninvolved editor (Sitush) to review the article. If you meant to add that they are related then you can add it as such in the Tuluva Vellala page but this is not the same as grouping them which is what you did. Hope you understand as each caste has its own history and this gets muddled when you group them and there is no special reason to group the specific castes which you did. As you yourself said, they are all Vellalars so no need another special group. Nittawinoda (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Rajaraja I

I've removed some stuff you added at Rajaraja I. It was mostly incomprehensible, used very obscure sources and seemed to be trying to make some sort of point-y commentary on the position of the Paraiyars way back when. Yes, the Paraiyars are mentioned in the Sangam literature but, really, they surely did not remotely constitute most of society back in RRI's day, which is what your paragraph seemed to suggest. I really think you should stop using such obscure sources: they do not even seem to be cited by others. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush:, yes I added the information for two reasons. One, to describe the society during the times of Rajaraja and secondly to better describe the status of the Paraiyars. Some are of the opinion that the Paraiyars were untouchables from time immemorial but the content that I had added serves to show that the untouchables were different from Paraiyars. The Paraiyars were mostly engaged in farming and their status seems to have degraded in subsequent times. Nittawinoda (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not necessarily so and is why I also removed the same material from Paraiyar. There is no doubt that they lived separately from other groups but those other groups may have lived separately also, according to the George Hart source already cited at the Paraiyar article. There is also no certainty that they were "untouchable" in the modern sense of the word, as that article also says. I don't think ramming an obscure point home using obscure sources achieves much and it may appear to some people to be POV-pushing because the section as used in Rajaraja I was so obviously about just one group among what must have been a much wider society.

I suspect a discussion of society as a whole during the period (ie: not just the Paraiyars) would be useful but it would be better in the Chola empire article unless Rajaraja I himself did something of note to change society. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look around, the more worried I am regarding the type of sources you are using across numerous South India society articles. They are almost always very obscure, quite old, not available in an academic database, mostly uncited by others etc. It is mystifying - I've never known anyone have access to such a large amount of dubious source material and yet seemingly not have access to standard works such as those of Kathleen Gough. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am thinking that you may be using snippet views from Google Books. If so, we're going to have to remove them all, across all the articles, because they are not acceptable sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example you added at Kondaikatti Vellalar The caste is divided into a number of unranked patrilineal lineages called Gotra, similar to many Indian castes. These clans are exogamous. That is a very odd-looking citation and I wonder if you can tell me the title of the journal article and its author. If you can, I'm wondering why you didn't use the article for a lot more statements and why the statement you did use it for isn't particularly well covered by the pages you cite. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Another cite you use at the Kondaikatti article is Donald B. Rosenthal. The City in Indian politics. Thomson Press (India), 1976. p. 104. Are you aware that Rosenthal was the editor of that book? So what chapter were you reading and who wrote it? It is striking that the two pages you cited (104 and 110) are the two that are available to me here in the UK as snippet views - perhaps they are in fact the only mentions of the Kondakaitti in the book but, well, given what I am seeing elsewhere I suspect it is another likely example of poor sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You have tagged the following as "full citation needed" in the Kondaikatti article. The following has the author, title, publisher, year and page number. What else do you expect? Nittawinoda (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kenneth David (ed.). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter, 2011. p. 400."

David Kenneth or Kenneth David (not sure which) is the editor. Who wrote the chapter? What is the chapter title? - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, if you have been using snippet views rather than reading the entire chapter etc then just say so and remove the source for now. No point in trying to fudge it because I'll know. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the whole section is visible. Check again. The author is Steve Barnett. The Chapter name is "Identity Choice and Caste Ideology in Contemporary South India". The title of the subsection is "Caste Substantialization in Contemporary South India". Nittawinoda (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, or I you. I see you have been doing more work on the article but the Kenneth David thing still doesn't say anything about the author or chapter etc. And then there are all the other queries, some of which I have mentioned above. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed Kenneth David and added an alternate source which in my opinion is better and more elaborate. The source is freely available in the net. I will fix the other sources. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good news, thanks, but it does seem to confirm what I was suggesting, ie: you've been using snippet views etc. That also applies to other articles you have edited and it is a real problem. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi I’ve just reviewed Kondaikatti Vellalar. Great article, thank you! Mccapra (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Thank you for the treat! Nittawinoda (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hemavati River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kongu Vellalar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kambar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've no idea why you are adding Pratiloma to various articles. If the practice actually applies to the caste in question then find a reliable source and add the link within the body of the text, please. Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to spam an article. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush:, Pratiloma is related to Chandala article and also since Namasudras were considered to be Chandala, I added it to these two articles. I also added it to the Japanese article Burakumin as it is related to caste and outcastes. Pratiloma is for the benefit of entire mankind and not constrained to Indian articles as it explains one of the causes for the downward movement (caste) of two persons involved in a union. The readers of these articles can read the Pratiloma page and make informed decisions in life. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, please could you find sources that indicate the connection and stick the thing in the body of those articles. For what it is worth, I think connecting the Chandala caste with the chandala concept of Pratiloma is a very dodgy thing to do - you would need a rock-solid source that gives that context. It's rather like the caste warriors who claim the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty are the same people as the modern Gurjars, or the Yadavas the same as the modern Yadavs. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I am out of touch, sorry. Are you still under a 1RR restriction? If you are then I am quite happy for you to ping whoever set it up and ask for a specific exemption for this issue on those three articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this source would work as a way to get pratiloma into the body of Chandala, rather than as a vague See also item? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. You are also making multiple edits to articles making it look as if the added words come from the sources cited nearby. This is misleading. Please do not make unsourced changes. Every addition must be cited to a reliable source --- this is critical for the encyclopedia, otherwise it's just people's opinion (i.e. pure invention). Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Agnieszka Osiecka

added a link pointing to Polish

Kura (Caspian Sea)

added a link pointing to Georgian

V. Shantaram

added a link pointing to Marathi

Wojciech Belon

added a link pointing to Polish

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V. Shantaram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Purakkad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pliny.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hello, I'm Dr.Pinsky. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Vellalar. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The Varna section which you are referring to is only a Hindu classification and does not apply to Jains and Christians. So it makes no sense to add it to the Vellalar article page.Nittawinoda (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss content and sourcing at article's talk page. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Help: Reconstructing Vellalar

Hello,

I can see you're interested in contributing on south Indian articles. I appreciate your work. I'm on the same boat too. The Vellalar article is need a broader rewrite and cleanups. Because, it's most of the edits were made by 2 editors only. Some of the information are one sided of authors and the editors.

The article is mostly connected with Tamilnadu's culture, arts, feudal history and it's religion (Shaivism) since the sangam age of Tamilnadu. If you can help me to rewrite the article, It'll be grateful.

Thank you :) Exhistorian (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer not to as I have also contributed to the article. My suggestion to you would be to pick one section at a time and start a discussion on the talk page by explaining why something should be removed or changed. You can then ping other editors and build a consensus to agree or disagree with your suggestion. I may also give my input at that time if I feel it is necessary. Once you have got some support you can use the template "Change X to Y" and some experienced and uninvolved editor will make that change for you in the article page. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I take care of the summary (including the first half) section and their origin. If you take care of the society and other remaining parts like subsect castes, religious rituals, varna and their social status, it'll be helpful. The article is being backbone of Shaivism history and Tamils feudal past. You might know that most of the Shaiva Nayanmars from this society and their backgrounds were like commander-in-chief, senathipathy, landed gentry, and rich merchants.(^) If you're busy, atleast recommend me some genuine editors.

Also, I'm looking to improve the Tamil dynasties and its ancient history articles with creative commons resources for History lovers and Govt exam aspirants. Exhistorian (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam

Hello, Can I know why did you requested to delete the article Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam. I'm a history geek and was hoping to read the article later. Thilsebatti (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, It did not adhere to Wiki principles of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so I had it deleted. Nittawinoda (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam

Hello, Nittawinoda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Athondai

Hello, Nittawinoda

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TartarTorte and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Athondai, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 9 § Athondai.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TartarTorte}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TartarTorte 15:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam

Hello, Nittawinoda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chola conquest of Thondaimandalam".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 15:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hey, I’ve reverted your edit and just wanted to clarify.

The removed text about Varna Classification provides important historical context regarding the Vellalars’ classification as Shudras or Good Shudras in the 1901 census and their protest against this. It offers insight into their socio-political dynamics during British colonial times and how authorities interacted with caste hierarchies. This is crucial to understanding Vellalar identity.

Additionally, the text mentions the conversion of some Vellalars to Christianity, highlighting religious and social shifts within the community. Both points are well-sourced with references like Kingship and Political Practice in Colonial India by Pamela G. Price and Missions and Empire by Norman Etherington. These sources back the historical narrative, making the section integral to a full account of Vellalar evolution.

Finally, we don’t censor well-sourced, relevant information here, and removing this content reduces the depth of the article.