Hi LukeEmily! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Sitush (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		This barnstar is provided to you for your edits on Rajput article.You have done hard work to bring it under Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy.I appreciate it.But i suggest just below infobox a single sentence is floating.Place it at right place.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily:

Thank you so much Heba Aisha. You deserve a barnstar too! Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Vairagya Shatakam of Bhartrhari, 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. Loksmythe (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you Loksmythe. LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have enough content to not keep this article a stub forever??Heba Aisha (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, yes, I have the book and the translation. I was thinking of putting a one line summary for each verse.What is stub vs article?LukeEmily (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stub i think are those article which are started by someone but they fail to write more due to various reasons.And it appears like just one or two para definition of the topic.See i have also created 3 new article but they are expanded and i will expand further.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeEmily. Nobody is likely to notice your edit to the archive, complaining about bad edits by User:Jaggi9988. ("User:Jaggi9988 keeps adding unsourced material despite requesting him not to do so on Maratha and Maratha caste related pages"). It would be better for you to notify User:Ymblanter directly of your concerns. He is the admin who responded to the ANI originally on 31 August. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston and User:Ymblanter LukeEmily (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, pls let me know if they continue after the block has expired--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "LukeEmily", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1997kB, thank you for your message. My name is neither Luke nor Emily. This is not a shared account.LukeEmily (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up List of massacres in Bihar keep helping in future. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Heba Aisha. Will be happy to help if I can whenever needed although I do not know much about Bihar.LukeEmily (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 september was the date when we started rfc on rajput about origin and the person who had problem left as he was unable to give source. But he may create disruption and game the concensus once again in future.so it will be better to ask for request for closure on WP:ANI on 26 october.As the uninvolved admin will write result based on conversation and it can be used in future for disruptive editors.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this which we normally do with sock puppet edits that have had no response. I've also deleted the copy on the article talk page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Send Diwali wishings by adding ((subst:Happy Diwali)) to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you my dear Fylindfotberserk. Wishing you a Happy Diwali and a prosperous new year too.LukeEmily (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LukeEmily, would you kindly check this recent edit. Also pinging Мастер Шторм. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, I am looking the sources now. One source there is from Oxford University Press which is a scholarly publication. They have cited W. H. McLeod who seems fine to me. These two citations are ok. They have cited a book from Manohar publication, and I cannot really comment with certainty about this particular source. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Мастер Шторм. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Мастер Шторм, Fylindfotberserk, they have not provided page numbers for the first source. About the one written by Vanit Nalwa - (Manohar publication) - I am not sure of the author's qualifications although her book is referenced by many other sources. However, she is the direct descendant of the subject. Please see [2] where Susan Snow Wadley writes that Vanit Nalwa is a descendent. Is she considered neutral as per wikipedia standards? LukeEmily (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, can you take a look at these recent - edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, it is unlikely they were designated a martial race as they were an educated community. I am finding conflicting information in different sources. Will check that mentioned source. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take your time and kindly do the needful. That was probably a POV push. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Hi, and thank you for your contribs. We appreciate them a lot, and when vandals hate you, it's a sign that you're doing something right! I hope you continue your contributions and make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi luke, check sourced content added by me. Bihari Babu is back (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected editor,The recent addition of texts by Arun Sinha on bhumihar page is clearly wrong and i want to revert this. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistakenly understood my point on heba`s talk page Shakib khan1985 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please the revert the arun kumar references on bhumihar article. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the Arun Kumar reference. Please can you discuss with Heba? Why is it wrong? LukeEmily (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide how can I provide the references links I am talking about????? there seem to be a problem when I copy paste them from external sources.. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got certain links from my research on bhumihars from 1809 to 1900 . I have confusion about how to post them on the article’s talk page . Please guide. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the error? LukeEmily (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the colonial census classified bhumihars as shudras.I want you guys to so show the original census report which classified them as shudras. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverted original statement in 1872 census.????? That’s totally academic(real British census) . Shakib khan1985 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think, that my new article Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav is worth nomination for good article tag?Heba Aisha (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha , Don't know much about the topic but will read your page. One thing I noticed is that you are referring to him by first name Lalu in sections. Should it be Yadav?LukeEmily (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya...but not everytime writers write full name.But you are welcome to do improvements while you'll read. Your feedback will help me.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello LukeEmily, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Thanks Fylindfotberserk. Happy Holidays and have a Happy New Year. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Same to you too! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello LukeEmily, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Heba Aisha (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have Happy New Year Heba Aisha. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello LukeEmily, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, MRRaja001 (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Thanks and best wishes for the new year MRRaja001 LukeEmily (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Thanks User:245CMR. Have a great new year 2021. LukeEmily (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello LukeEmily, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Thank you Chariotrider555. Heartfelt and warm greetings to you for the new year too. LukeEmily (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

LukeEmily,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Like Emily, I just saw you sent me a message guiding on Twitter rules, I am still learning and will need your help in future. Can you plz come to Shekhar Gupta page for once and check why my edits are being reverted though I provided proper sources many of which are News papers of national repute and the matter is well known in national politics. Ramprakash1000 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

LukeEmily,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Thank you MRRaja001. Wish you a happy and prosperous new year. LukeEmily (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate!!! - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LukeEmily. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vairagya Shatakam of Bhartrhari".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need ur visit here at regular intervals. For some problematic pages. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heba Aisha! Hope you are doing well. I have been very busy in personal life this year and may be busy for the next few months too but will try to at least watch edits more often. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please once see this Battle of Mandan page. Not a single source looks credible. 2 out of 3 the sources are even low rated on Google books and one is by a caste historian. This whole article is a propoganda against reality. Please User:LukeEmily User:HinduKshatrana User:Stiush check it.

Is that Sitush you tried to mention? Anyways, Luke is not online from few days. And regarding the credibility of sources, Heba Aisha is also good in this particular area. HinduKshatrana (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ranadhira is working there. The basic problem this particular user is pointing towards must be clash of castes. As for example, when i edited one such article called Battle of Mandoli, i found that basic issue there was the pov pushing by Rajput and Jat editors. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir please see how are these sources even authentic?

References

1) Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa and company.

2) Sinh, Ranbir (2001). History of Shekhawats. p. 280.

3) Meharda, B.L. Territory, Polity, and Status- A Study of Shekhawats.

Here 1st source is from some Rupa company, other 2 are from caste writers not credible historians.

User:HinduKshatrana why are these unauthentic sources are allowed on Battle of Mandan site?

User:LukeEmily please see references on this page Battle of Mandan. They are not authentic. Not a single reference is authentic and whole article is based on just Three references. Please see validity of article's authentication.

I agree the sources are not of good quality. LukeEmily (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:LukeEmily Yes. Not a single source is authentic. Please help on Battle of Mandan.

User:LukeEmily User:Sitush this editor User:Randhira has still added Rupa & Company source in article of Battle of Mandan. How is that Rupa Company source athentic on historical war based article? Even the list of books written by author Hooja seems to be only boasting about Rajasthan state, Maharana Pratap, Princes, Kings, etc. How can it be believed that the author was not biased while writing History-cum-Stories?

User:Heba Aisha please check authenticity of Rupa company source in Battle of Mandan

User:LukeEmily please help for the Rupa Company source on Battle of Mandan how is it reliable for War history ?

User:LukeEmily hello please help regarding Rupa Company source on Battle of Mandan. How can it be reliable for war history?

IP, Please see comment by Ranadhira above, he has given link for the credentials of the author. Hooja is a historian and hence reliable for wikipedia. About Rupa books, I am not sure. There are some publications like Isha books etc. that are not allowed due to circular referencing but I am not sure about the Rupa company. Also, I am not familiar with this topic(Battle of Mandan). You can ask on WP:RSN about Rupa books. The other editor who might be familiar with it is Sajaypal007 as he is familiar with history of Rajasthan. Please can you discuss with them or Sitush directly? If you think her book is a non-academic hagiography, you can discuss that. I will also ping another user who might be able to help with better references. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Publication is not some low grade publishing house, I hear that their publishing is cheaper hence many writers prefer them. Rupa publication has published some good books and nonetheless the writer Rima Hooja is a historian and archaelogist herself, she holds Master degree in History and published many papers. As pointed by @LukeEmily, @Ranadhira had already given her credentials. I myself also referred to her book many a times, and I think her work "History of Rajasthan" is really good. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was a bit confused as to why Rima Hooja is not a credible historian? I have given a link below for you to see. Please do have a look. Since the other citations have been termed caste based, I will remove them and add ((onesource)) for now and improve the article, thanks.

https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/travel/dr-rima-hooja Ranadhira (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure, thanks. Yes, she is a historian. My apologies.LukeEmily (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ekdalian is Kayastha Warrior Even though most of the information is referred to as Bramhin, his love for his own community may not allow him to accept the information. But I want to understand that what is your problem?(I'm not saying it in a bad way)

Bengali kayastha is known as karan-kayastha Karan - baishya father and Sudra mother (Bramha bairbarta Puran) অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YRRnRK8lEYEC&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

Check it out.....Thank you অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sPCcDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false Read this too........ অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা, I don't have any problem with anyone. I have already given the source that says they are half-brahmin. Right now, I am only collecting different quotes from the sources - nothing more. Actually, I am trying to find some source that says Baidyas are a subcaste of Brahmins.

(personal opinion) I find it hard to imagine that they are not brahmins given that they were more educated than brahmins(based on the sources I have seen). I don't know about EkDalian but he seems quite senior. But he is discussing quite logically on the talk page and I read his discussions with Sitush also.LukeEmily (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so

You don't understand exactly, so I gave a reference to explain, I asked a question to understand what is happening somewhere.

ekdalian will never be able to write neutral text Sorry to hurt you, hope you read the reference অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a PDF version of a book written by a Brahmin scholar, but it is written in Bengali. And these books are rare books Of course, before 1947, some before 1900 But a picture is created throughout everything

Thank you অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা Yes, I read the reference about Bengali Baidyas(Brahmin/Vaishya) and kayasthas(vaishya/shudra). I checked the Bengali Kayastha page just now, the vaishya/Shudra mention is present although the source is different. For Baidyas, I also found another reference that says they wear sacred thread. I did find a reference that says that Baidya's ritual status improved to Brahmin. I will put it on the talk page and see what other editors think. I am just trying to understand the sources first as I do not know about the castes in Bengal. I personally do not have problem putting Brahmin on the page because I found at least one high quality source that says it. We can always have RFC if there is any disagreement. You can use your Bengali source on wikipedia. Just add a translation for the quote.LukeEmily (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This side is operated for any other purpose More popular source http://jeevansathi.com অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your shared site is not popular and I don't think that's the right thing to do The site below is somewhat popular But till now the search for the bride and groom through magazines is much more than the search for the bride and groom through the site https://www.jeevansathi.com/bengali-baidya-matrimony-matrimonials#:~:text=Baidyas%20are%20the%20worshippers%20of,intellect%20community%20of%20West%20Bengal অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link I gave is a bit popular. In the comment above, some unnecessary words have been added for software problem অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyas are socially married to the same caste https://www.jeevansathi.com/bengali-baidya-matrimony-matrimonials#:~:text=Baidyas%20are%20the%20worshippers%20of,intellect%20community%20of%20West%20Bengal অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা, got it. Thanks for sending the link.LukeEmily (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to distort the article See the topic. অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In baidya article "Tranga Bellam" started the edit war, he has a history of edit war, Take action against it. অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily TrangaBellam edited the Baidya page to push his POV WP:SYN is cleary reflected. The source of journals that he used is under payroll and hencevnot verifiable. I have seen he had edit dispute with you as well. Please check tha article thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, yes, I will look at this changes he has made.LukeEmily (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LukeEmily, your each and every decisions is valuable for me in this editing. You are the most polite and great editor I have found so fer.Thanks Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a senior editor I urge you to look at that matter.TrangaBellam writing different things but the citations are showing different things. Please check the talk page. Safron710 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly has some hidden motives. Safron710 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safron710, We have to assume good faith edits from any editor even if we do not agree with the content. Please see WP:GOODFAITH. Also, admins may interpret it as a personal attack to doubt someone's motives. See WP:NPA. It is best to only focus on the content and the edits rather than the editor. It may just be a simple content dispute. Can you list on the Baidya talk page the list of citations where you think the citation is misrepresented? We can discuss with him on the talk page of Baidya and get them fixed if necessary. If there is a misunderstanding of the sources on any editor's part, it could be a honest mistake.LukeEmily (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily I would urge you to start editing the Baidya page.You are a senior editor. I would also start editing with you. Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reliable sources as well, which can be used by both of us. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sengupta 24, I checked the latest status. Their Brahmin origin is explained now. Dutt is also not in footnotes. Do you have any other suggestions?LukeEmily (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeEmily,Hope you are doing well.I am sorry to disturb you.In Baidya article,the reference of Julius J. Lipner was accepted.Now it is not present there. Can you add this in relevant position,written by Julius J. Lipner? Quote is here

In Bengal, there are reckoned to be three main upper'castes': the Brahmins, the Baidyas and the Kayasthas. Whilst there is an undisputed Brahmin varna in Bengali society with various sub-divisions and even a developed sense of socio-religious hierarchy within these in some respects, it hardly makes sense to ask to which varna the other two castes belong. Some claim that the Ksatriya and Vaisya varnas have been defunct in Bengal for generations, others that the Baidyas are ex-Brahmins and the Kayasthas are Sudras. Yet Kayasthas have claimed the right to wear the sacred thread (the mark of the twice-born), and have even gone to court to enforce this claim. These are contentious issues and make a mockery of the'fit' between varna and jati in this context.

.Thanks.Regards Satnam2408 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Satnam2408, Personally, I have no problem if "ex-Brahmin" is there on the page since it is a sourced statement - WP:RS and WP:HISTRS but TrangaBellam has much more context/knowledge/sources about this topic than I do. He/she might have planned to add it later or in some other form. I have not been following their edits on that page recently. I will ask on talk page if they are planning to add it back. I think they are still in process of editing - see Talk:Baidya#Areas_of_improvement but no harm in asking. Also, you can discuss with them directly on the Baidya talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeEmily. I am sorry to disturbe you.In the colonial section of the article a passage is written by TrangaBellam. Baidya social historians like Umesh Chandra Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Sen would support Risley's observation with a measured skepticism and forge a glorious Baidya past, in their quest of writing a history of Bengal from kulanjis — Gupta, in particular, rebuked the Kayasthas for fabricating evidence to malign the Vaidyas as a low caste.. Here is the source. Citation 231, p. 184. I have gone through the page 183-185.At least I have found the text and source inconsistent(the "forge baidya's glorious history part" mentioned by TrangaBellam). TrangaBellam may be true. I would urge you to check it yourself (if possible).I can request TrangaBellam for explanation but I am not familiar with Wikipedia rules properly and he has threatened me for WP:AE(Because I have requested him for quote of a easily available source). Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Satnam2408. Sure, will take a look. LukeEmily (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I SAW THE FULL TACK PAGE,I SAW MR.ABHISEK PROGRESSING THE POST WITH HIS RELIABLE SORCE.YOU WERE ALSO WRITING THE ARTICLE BEAUTIFULLY,BUT THEN A NEWCOMER EDITING BATTLE WITH OTHER MOTIVES , DESTRUCTIVE WRITING CREATES A SOCIAL UNREST, "MISQUOTING" IS A CRIME ( ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF INDIA ALSO),MAKE THE WRITING BEAUTIFUL WITH MR.ABHISHEK, AFTER WATCHING THIS TALK , I SAW

BAIDYA IS A BRAHMIN BIJ (CENSUS 1931 )SO LATER WRITINGS MAY BE A REFLECTION OF VIOLENCE, THE CENSUS IS AN OFFICAL DOCUMENT. BHATTA4 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to be sure on mobile but I noticed earlier today a lot of crossover on articles edited by Gupta Ynr with edits by a V.S.bhardwaj, who has now just reappeared on the Bairagi article. There is no way I can run a sock check on mobile but it might be worth a dig as both are clueless & have difficulties with English phrasing, spelling & grammar also. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanhaji was a Kshatriya Koli Rajput. Many proofs was given by Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Koli Rajput sang if want then I can also give to you sir 😊 An indian ancient philospher (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a celebrate ascetic of vaishnav sect not about the bairagi caste Gupta Ynr (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it recently, but some links are broken. Also, body part seems to be written imperfectly. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heba Aisha.LukeEmily (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the threads getting archived like other talk-pages? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, I was not sure but I made this edit based on a talk page that is getting archived. Hopefully, that should fix it. Kautilya3, do we need to do anything else to fix it? Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I have never used this method of archiving and don't know if it works. I generally use the MiszaBot, whose code can be found towards the bottom of Talk:Hinduism or my User talk:Kautilya3. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, LukeEmily I've drafted just the Scripture portion based on your proposal. I came across a recent source, Bhaumik, that contains valuable information about Baidya, which I believe should be included. I've also reached out to TrangaBellam and communicated with them via their talk page, but they haven't responded yet. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Satnam2408:, will take a look and will respond on the page. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the link. Thanks for your reply LukeEmily. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LukeEmily, I just posted a note about this article in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian history, but I'm not sure how active that project is. Do you know of any other projects that might be a good place to attract more eyes to the article? At the moment it's become a bit of a battleground, hence the AfD and protection. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhNoitsJamie, not sure where else it can posted. Requesting Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam for any input. LukeEmily (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be posted on WT:INDIA of course. I have it on my watch list too now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article also shows the U.K. in poor light for its former acts on colonies in this time of globalization—, where I have heard that before? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of yours on that page has been reverted, please see the talk page List of Rajput dynasties and states. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajaypal007, ok. Thanks for letting me know. Will check the discussion. LukeEmily (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you have guessed, the IP is Showbiz. I left a comment on the SPI asking for a rangeblock. You may want to comment on Wikiproject India pointing to the discussion. Also note that NPOV means including all viewpoints (which is my real main problem with what SB wants), meaning even if the consensus is to explicitly say X, given the number of scholars arguing the term is applied earlier than it should, that view should be noted as well. Ravensfire (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LukeEmily. I hope you don't mind for writing this on your talk page.

I hadn't added the Sanskrit related content on Shivaji, but I want to make you aware that Shivaji did promote Sanskrit and Marathi. I don't have much time to make an edit for this. In case you want to make an edit, for a general idea you can check out the second chapter of the book by Sumeet Guha. Here - [3]

Also Shivaji made a lexicon 'Rājavyavahārakośa' that replaced Persian and Arabic terms with their Sanskrit equivalents. You can Google it. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Akshaypatil is correct; this is a well known fact. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, OK. I was aware of Marathi but was surprised to hear about Sanskrit. Did not know about the Pollock source.LukeEmily (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily Happy new year. Wish you a happy and prosperous new year ahead. Satnam2408 (talk)

You can archieve it as it is meant for only to wish you. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you and same to you Satnam2408. Forgive me for not replying earlier . Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living person needs "self indetification" means?? can you please elaborate? thank you Nobita456 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456, please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Basically, the caste claim needs to be sourced from a WP:RS. If that person is currently alive, it has to be a self identification. Examples - the living person could say in the source "I come from a Brahmin family originating in XYZ state", or "I am a Brahmin by heritage" etc. I do not necessarily agree with the rule of self-identification but that is the Wikipedia consensus. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou LukeEmily for your valuable guidance.Nobita456 (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got your ping at the talk page of Baidya article. I have two things to tell you that's why I came to your talk

1. I am not happy regarding the modern section of Baidya, as I will come to that soon.

2. In the Bengali Kayastha article you Miss presented some words(I believe it was done by you unintentionally). I will catch you soon. good night,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Nobita456. Please let me know your comments. If there is any misrepresentation, we can surely fix it.LukeEmily (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good morning luke I am requesting you to Revert the Bengali Kayatsha article with my last edits if I satisfied you about Baidya's ritual status.or add all views of Baidya's varna in mediaeval era including Kulajis and Inscription.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your views regarding that,Where I forgot to ping you and others.For me this is important to give the views of Rc, I described the reasons for it also there. thanks Nobita456 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nobita456, I don't have much context about it nor do I have full access to these sources. TB is saying that there is no contradiction in the sources. He has studied this topic deeply because he made the major edits on the page. Can you continue discussion with him?LukeEmily (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding ongoing dispute related to inclusion of a statement in Origin section. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Pala Empire".The discussion is about the topic Pala Empire.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Ekdalian (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hey lukeEmily may I ask you for a favor? can you please add an infobox template in Baidya article,like it is present in Bengali brahmin and Bengali Kayastha article. we can later find and add a Baidya image with that.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is not contentious. For the image, we generally do not add any notables.LukeEmily (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please guide me on which images can we use.Nobita456 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456 , Raj era sources are generally acceptable for images as they are usually neutral and in public domain. Please make sure that any image you use has no copyright issues. Generally a neutral image is preferred. For example, for the Maratha caste, which is or was mostly comprised of farmers, Shivaji's image in the infobox would not be neutral since he does not represent a common maratha. Please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy for details. LukeEmily (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks lukeEmily,can you please check Bengali kaystha article.John Henry Hutton is a British administrator and his book originally published in 1946.hence making it not suitable for caste related articles.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456, I checked his page. Looks like he was a historian/anthropologist and the edition of the book referenced published in after independence as well as by a high quality academic press(it is a new edition ,not a reprint). Anyway, we can discuss with others.LukeEmily (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you luke, for that template. Nobita456 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it was a very small task. Not really worthy of a barnstar :-) - LukeEmily (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its ok. Nobita456 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all notables are well sourced baidyas in their own article.please remove the tag TB told me not to cite them in baidya article as it is already cited in main article. Nobita456 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nobita456 . I did not know. Will remove the tag.LukeEmily (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TB told me not to cite them in baidya article as it is already cited in main article. - Care to provide a diff? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1069320151 then why you removed those sourced content? they were sourced.if you find any of them unsourced only remove them.you are making it hard for others to edit in wikipedia. Nobita456 (talk)

sources are present at their main article.check them. dont revert sourced content.stop this. Nobita456 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have Amartya Sen mentioned as a notable Baidya, you need to have a source where a reliable source (preferably, Sen himself) notes it. This applies for all cases. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam is this reliable enough for Amartya sen? Nobita456 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you please take care of that newly created vaidya(surname) article? I think that article requires some tags or something like that. Nobita456 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hey luke brahmins were vaidyas since Vedic ages.this is not Bengali Baidya related where they can draw from various varnas.Rigveda 10.97.6 describe the vaidyas as Bipra(Brahmins).I think you are following my edits.that thing was present in brahmin page since very long.I just renamed it to ayurvedic vaidyas from ayurvedic physicians.dont revert it. Nobita456 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a caste article it is a varna article.Vaidyas are Bipras(Brahmins) revert your edits.Nobita456 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting concerned with your edits. Vedas are primary sources and Rigveda was added last year for the ayurvedic professions. We cannot write accountants for example because most accountants like Kulkarnis were Brahmins.LukeEmily (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is about their profession.Brahmins often take Vaidya profession.I have sources.Check Vaidya article and even I have many others.and I am not citing rig veda directly as a primary source check this https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dkmmmlClm5wC&dq=Baidya+bengali+sarasvata&pg=PA110&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false P.110 Nobita456 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know luke you are not familiar with Indian system.but at least believe in my good faith edits.Nobita456 (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If rigveda mention Vaidyas as brahmins will you still not write it?? Nobita456 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• all Vaidyas are Brahmins but not Brahmins are Vaidyas.source is already given in Vaidya article where they were mentioned suppirior to Brahmins.Please revert your edits.and It is a sacred profession not a random profession, should be there in Brahmin article.Nobita456 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all Vaidyas are Brahmins but not Brahmins are Vaidyas. Simply not true. I just showed you sources few hours back that most vaidyas are *not* brahmins but you deleted those sources from the Vaidya page. Are Baidyas brahmins? No. Why did the Bengali Brahmins classify physicians in Bengal as Shudras for 700 years if the Rigveda said otherwise? Only a few Vaidyas are brahmins. Being a Vaidya involves dealing with blood and bodily fluids, would most brahmins be comfortable with that? Rigveda has only two varnas - priests and kings. And it is a primary source. Brahmins are called the priestly/teacher caste not the physician caste. You are desperately trying to promote the Baidya indirectly across wikipedia. Initially I supported you because I assumed good faith but I am now completely in agreement with Ekdalian with his allegations about your POV pushing. LukeEmily (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source that is provided in Vaidya article. Vaidyas first have to become brahmins,then after studying ayurveda they can be called as Vaidyas.my all edits are sourced,I don't edit without source.check the source which I added recently in Brahmin page.Brahmins are often associated with sacred medical profession,from vedic times.and as I told you before this is not about bengali baidyas.plase think a little. Nobita456 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• check all sources and make your decision Luke.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456 , you can check this source.^[1] Link is page 44. It has a complete different view although it quotes from Charak samhita.LukeEmily (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Malocm McLean is a businessman not a scholer.remove his book.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, Daivadnyas are not Brahmins. They are part of the Vishwakarma or Sonar community. Their Brahmin claims were even rejected by prominent scholars such as Karve, Lele and Naik in their research works. Don't add them to Marathi Brahmins. Go through these research papers Citation 1, Karve Research Citation, Maharashtra, Land and Its People, Hindu Society: An Interpretation, From Ancient to Modern: Religion, Power, and Community in India -Oxford University Press, Pangat, a Feast: Food and Lore from Marathi Kitchens. They claim Brahminhood but they are not considered as Brahmins by Other castes including Brahmins of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. See this they are even claiming they are higher than Deshastha, Konkanastha and Karhade Brahmins. Iravati Karve clearly did complete research about this community and published them in many of her books. Do you know one thing they are even claiming Adi Shankaracharya is a Daivadnya even though everyone knows he was born to Nambudiri Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MRRaja001, for the sources. That source I added seems to be a fringe opinion. I agree with you. I also checked a source on Gramanya and a group of Brahmins scholars had declared both the GSB - shenvi (the nonvegetarians) and the Daivadnyas as non-Brahmins. In case of Shenvis(GSB), there was a court case later that "resolved" the issue but in Davidnayna nor was there a court case nor did the Brahmins change their verdict. In fact, you can read the quote given in Khatri#Rajasthan,_Gujarat_and_Maharashtra. Treemungalacharya was a sonar. So you are correct. Claiming ritual status higher than the mainstream brahmins of Maharashtra without any proof is absolutely strange. I will try to read up on them and their disputes, but for now, I agree with you.LukeEmily (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001, FYI, some of your sources are not WP:RS. Although I agree with you for now based on the other sources I gave a cursory look. Will dig into this more later.LukeEmily (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily Except this citation; all are very good citations and meet WP:RS. Anyways I am ready for discussion on this. Thanks - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001 ^(talk) and LukeEmily When it comes to caste, different social groups have tried to claim brahmin, and more often, kshatriya status. In present times, who decides what a community's ritual status is, or that matter for a person? If, for example, a non-hindu community decides enmasse to do Ghar Wapsi and become Hindu then would they be able claim a brahmin or kshatriya status? I am sure they will prefer a higher ritual status than shudra or ati-shudra. This may be hypothetical at present but given the current situation in India, I am sure it will become a reality. Any comments? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathansammy, I think we should mention all views given in reliable sources. Their own claim, was there any historic decision by Brahmins as well as what the modern scholars say about the ritual status now(do they have sacred thread ceremony or not). Raj era historians are less reliable. I have not investigated into Daivadnyna community. I do not think we should be blanking out sourced content as long as the source is reliable. I was concerned because this was from an academic source and Oliver Godsmark is a scholar on Indian history - his PhD was in history of Western India. About differing views, Rajputs is a perfect example. It is well known that they were simply tribals or peasants and after gaining political power, started linking themselves with some old Kshatriya races. However, Brahmins of the area (unlike in Western and south India), were generally poor and benefitted from this Sanskritization, hence they supported it. On the other hand, I was recently working on two Bengali caste articles and learnt a few things - it is now well known that the non-Brahmin Bhadralok's of Bengal probably have a significant Brahmin component but due to the absurd two varna system in Bengal(if you are not a Brahmin, you are automatically a shudra) system,Bengali Kayastha and Baidya, whose literacy rate was high were classified as Shudras only because they were not Brahmins. But if you look at the Baidya article, all views have been added. To answer your question specifically, we should not decide anything - we simply quote the sources.LukeEmily (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily Thanks for a quick reply.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily and Jonathansammy: The caste system is very rigid. Jonathansammy this doesn't apply to only Brahmins the other communities who are not doing their prescribed duties prescribed by Varnashrama also do not belong to that varna. These established norms are very difficult to change. This applies even now because priests in most of the temples and the people who know shastras are still Brahmins and the people who are claiming to be Brahmins are impractical. Coming to Kshatriyahood, these Rajputs who came somewhere from Europe established themselves as Kshatriyas in the Northwest region, because of this the people who are of the same origin who came along with these Rajputs, who have similar surnames as Rajputs are still claiming to be Rajputs to further claim Kshatriyahood. So, claiming is different from the established fact. LukeEmily, Adding all the communities which claim themselves as Brahmins or Kshatriyas cause a lot of confusion and the article becomes clumsy. Moreover, these same communities which are claiming to be Brahmins never come to fight against non-Brahmins who are degrading these Brahmins. They just want their status to enjoy in society but never want to support Brahmins. Coming to the political scenarios these non-Brahmins who are claiming to be Brahmins always support these non-Brahmin protesters. Moreover, Brahmins are the ones who are suffering because of these things. When the Anti-Brahmin movement took place what were these people who are claiming to be Brahmins doing, did they support Brahmins? Where are these non-Brahmins who are claiming to be Brahmins when the 1948 genocide of Maharashtrian Brahmins that followed M K Gandhi’s assassination happened?. The Marathi Brahmins whom we have mentioned in the Marathi Brahmin article are the ones who suffered in these contexts not Daivdanyas or other non-Brahmin communities who are claiming Brahmin status. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MRRaja001Lots to talk about. Per Ghurye, the caste system was not as rigid before the British arrival. The British ethnographers / census takers wishing to "pigeonhole" people either deliberately, or inadvertently made the caste system rigid. Also in their desire to group the thousands of communities in the four varnas made so many artisan communities to claim Kshatriya status either through their respective caste sabhas and or the court system. These turn of the 20th century events will make a good Wikipedia article in itself. Many artisan groups have also created stories based on the Parashurama story. I once heard a story from a man from a Gujarati barber caste about their "Kshatriya status". During genocide against the Kshatriyas, a group of Kshatriyas, in order to save their lives, disguised themselves by picking up the trade of shaving. Indirectly, I have heard of other artisan communities, mainly Guajarati, with similar stories. Most of these groups have been using the term Kshatriya or Arya for nearly a century now.^[1] Now coming to the 1948 violence against Maharashtrian Brahmins that followed M K Gandhi’s assassination, given the current demographics of Maharashtra, and the political priorities of different parties, I doubt that there ever will be any official inquiry on the matter.For example, highlighting Hindu on Hindu violence wouldn't fit the BJP's narrative of "hindu unity", and the "bahujan samaj" wouldn't like publicity given to the 1948 crimes of their forefathers. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathansammy: Rigid in my sense is not Varna but in terms of profession based Jati system. These Britishers don't know the difference between Varna and Jati. They Mixed up these two and made a big mess out of it. In Maharashtra priesthood was a traditional profession of Deshastha Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins and Karhade Brahmins. These are profession based classification rather than Guna in case of Varna system. Coming to 1948 genocide Enquiry on 1948 genocide will never happen until Brahmins come into power. Many Brahmins are poor in Maharashtra now, Maratha-Kunbi community is the richest community and holds 75-80% of Lands in Maharashtra but they have reservations too now. This is the reason these Maratha-Kunbi community are trying to portray that Brahmins are only 4% of population but the fact is Brahmins are more than 9-10% of total population at present. I want to clarify few things here. Mainly there are two divisions among Brahmins throughout India — Pancha-Dravida (Maharashtra, Gujarat and South India) and Pancha-Gauda (rest of India including North India). Other than the list in this, all others who are claiming to be Brahmins are not Brahmins and this is the rigidity and how close knitted this community is. If at all they want to marry they'll marry only with the Brahmins who are listed in this and others are automatically avoided and are not considered Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, creation of Parsuram story for themselves by some caste has no value unless that story is part of the Hindu scriptures and that story is accepted as the origin of that caste by Brahmin religious leaders such as the Shankaracharyas(they will accept it if it part of the scripture as Brahmins cannot reject their own sacred scriptures). The 1948 genocide was not investigated by any Indian governments as far as I know. I do not follow Indian politics but I do not think the BJP was in power at the time after the genocide. Not a single person was punished after the riots. I read Patterson's paper and the primary target were Chitpawans. Deshastha and Karhades got caught up in it too. It is likely that some non-Brahmin people became victims too especially if they had surnames common to Brahmins as the hooligans were not experts in identifying castes. But I don't know. I will comment on the other parts later.LukeEmily (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey luke, I am requesting you to assume my good faith edits. I don't want to demote a certain caste. I am just protesting against the POV pushing by Ekdalian, nothing else. I don't have any personal Envy on Kayasthas. Personally, I think they are well educated and did a good contribution to build this modern Bengal.For their high literacy rate I also think they were unfairly degraded by priestly Brahmins from their original varna, but these Aryan theories are clear racism by Ekdalian, The book of Banu was a doubt for me and now see TB also raised concerns on it . This was the reason to put that book in RSN a couple of times. Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also please go through this book https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC p. 257,258. This was the reason the whole migration considered as a folklore by historians and I also opposed that migration. Nobita456 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456 , I agree that Aryan theories should be removed. I think there is a lot of caste wars going on between the Bengali castes (such as Braidya, Bengali Brahmin and Bengali Kayastha) and most editors such as Sitush, TB and myself are really tired trying to resolve conflicts between editors. From what I read, Bengal has only two varnas (Brahmin/Shudra). I think Bengali Kayastha fall in the Shudra varna as per at least some sources. Since wikipedia is not censored, their Shudra status needs to be mentioned. Not sure of Baidya because if they wear sacred thread, then they cannot be shudra but sources are contradictory. It is a bit confusing for someone who does not have context. Anyway, all that editors want is that you and EkDalian work together to resolve disputes amicably.LukeEmily (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you can work on other articles of your interest for some time. Then you can start on caste related pages after may as admins suggest.LukeEmily (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeEmily, can you please check my latest version of Bengali Kayastha, which has been reverted by WikiLinuz. I have taken utmost care to avoid any racial element but still keeping the same in line with what the sources say, as also suggested by you. Please drop your remarks in the relevant talk page section! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ekdalian, please see Aryan race. These theories have been discredited. You described the Bengali Kayastha and Bengali Brahmin group as Aryans in your edit which may be sourced but the entire theory has been discredited. Also, there is some blanket ban on anything related to genetics on caste articles. Race comes too close to genetics. I don't have any objection to the non-Race related content. Please can you work with Satnam , TB and WikiLinuz for the other issues.LukeEmily (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, i don't have any grudge against any community, but the thing is Daivadnyas don't have proper stand on what they are claiming. It is well known that they are Goldsmiths community. They call themselves they have descendand from Vishwakarma. If they have descendand from Vishwakarma how can they become Brahmins as per logic. After that they started claiming they are Brahmins but are there any proofs for this. Do you know what this community is called in Konkan region — Konkanastha Rathakara (Sankara Jati means mixed caste of low ritual status). This is the only reason why I started discussing about them. But the case of Saraswats of Western India is different from this. Hope you understood. Sorry mate! - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRRaja001, no need to apologize buddy. Sorry for not replying earlier. I really don't have grudge against any community such as GSBs either and I have nothing for or against the Daivadnyas either. Yes, I think Daivadnya page needs fixing as mentioned by Sitush. There were minor challenges to Vasai Deshastha Brahmins but they were not unanimous by the Brahmin community. The GSB(Sehnvi) status is not as clear as Deshastha or Karhade Brahmins whose Brahminhood has been universally accepted by other Brahmins as well as scholars. You can read some quotes on the Brahmin talk page. Shenvi was the subsection that came most in contact with the Maratha empire. I did not know about Konkanastha Rathakara or what it means. One question is - why do they(Daivadnya) have their own priests if they are not Brahmins? But I agree based on what I read that most sources disagree with their claim to be Brahmins. We can discuss more when I return from the break(see my user page)LukeEmily (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily Daivdanyas adopted many things from Brahmins during Maratha times. They have their own priests but they also employ Karhades as their priests in Konkan region. Whereas other communities consider Daivdanyas as Rathakara, the people who were born with union of low caste women and high caste men or high caste women and low caste men (Sankara Jati). This is the reason why they are called as Konkanastha Rathakaras. Other communities never employ Daivdanyas as their priests. Hope I cleared your doubt. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 03:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRRaja001, the Rathakara refers to Chariot maker and not goldsmith? From what I have read so far from many sources neither Daivdanyas nor GSB(shenvi) are Brahmins. GSB are generally more accepted as Brahmins and Daivdanyas are not. The GSB caste was formed in the late 19th century to counteract the Chitpawans, Deshasthas Karhades who were denying their Brahminhood. They based their origin on Sahyadrikhanda, but if you read what is written there is it very derogatory to established Brahmins like Karhade Brahmins. Hence many do not accept the authority of this part of the Sahyadrikhanda. It is said to be a later interpolation. Brahmins had to sacrifice a lot in olden times to live according to the caste rules. Priests did not generally made much money. One of the reasons that Brahmins were respected was not just their knowledge but their spiritual life and dedication to God. In fact, there are small communities that were more educated than the Brahmins. Despite this, Brahmins had the highest ritual status. That is why most Brahmin communities will challenge claims by other communities to be accepted as Brahmins. It is not always a case of political rivalry. Shenvis were generally traders by profession. I understand that you have some GSB relatives and there is no intent to disparage anyone. But we have specified that the varna issue was only for Shenvi not all GSB groups. After all, we are only going by sources not personal opinions. I have nothing against any community- just want to make wikipedia accurate. Unfortunately, there are too many sources that to not agree with the Brahminhood of the GSB(Shenvi). I don't know if you had a chance to read the quotes at the end of Talk:Brahmin#Brahminhood. Sitush has brought up issues with both these communities multiple times. But it can be written in a more sensitive manner. One question: Is there some sort of rivalry between GSB and Daivadnyas because I was checking the edit history by Nijgoykar and he was the one adding Brahmin on the Daivadnya page and also writing that GSB are not Brahmin. He is partially correct about GSB as I found some sources that say the same but he is incorrect about Daivadnyas being Brahmins. The case of GSB(Shenvi) being Brahmins is not as clear cut as that of Deshastha. You can try replacing GSB in the quotes given at the end of Talk:Brahmin#Brahminhood with accepted Brahmin communities like Deshastha/Karhade and see how strange the quotes will sound.LukeEmily (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: First of all GSB community was not formed in the 19th century. These might be written by authors who have half knowledge about the community. I will give you a analogy, In the 15th Century - 16th Century, Raghuttama Tirtha, Peetadhipathi of Uttaradi Matha, a Deshastha Brahmin, initiated one of his disciples Narayana Tirtha and founded Gokarna Matha. Similarly, In the 16th century Vijayindra Tirtha, Peetadhipathi of Kumbakonam Matha, initiated a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin - Yadavendra Thirtha and founded Kashi Math. All the Gaud Saraswat Madhwa Brahmins are followers of these mathas. So, by this, you should understand that GSBs existed way before the 15th Century. The Shenvis whom you're quoting are part of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin community but this doesn't mean all GSBs are Shenvis. Now coming to Daivdanyas, they are Goldsmiths and are not related to Brahmins at all. These Daivdanyas are called Konkanastha Rathakaras because there is also another theory which says they are descended from Rathakaras of Anuloma and Pratiloma. Rathakara means Chariot but recent archaeologists found some inscriptions that say Rathakaras are artisans and are born out of Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages. So, they are considered Sankara Jati by other communities. The main reason why they are degraded is that there are many origin theories on this community and is not concrete. Hope I answered you. See these videos Video1, Video2, Video3, Video4, — Satyatma Tirtha Swamiji, a Deshastha Brahmin and present Peetadhipathi of Uttaradi Matha inviting Vidyādhirāja Teeth of Gokarna Matha, a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. Think practically if they are not considered Brahmins will they invite them in this manner into Uttaradi Matha, the matha founded by Jagadguru Madhvacharya himself with Padmanabha Tirtha as its head. In fact Madhva Vijaya, also says Madhvacharya converted many Gaud Saraswat Brahmins into Madhva faith when he visited Goa. So, by this, we can say they existed before the 13th century in the Konkan coast. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRRaja001, please forgive me. I did not mean to offend. I will reply to you tomorrow. If you feel strongly about it, I will not work on that article any more.LukeEmily (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing offending here. You're doing a great job. I don't want to stop you. Keep going. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the varna section name to make it explicit that only shenvi is discussed. I actually agree with what you say about other GSB.LukeEmily (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Thanks for being to the point. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRRaja001, there is no question that the Madhva GSB are Brahmins.LukeEmily (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001, Do you have any sources that state that all Smartha are Shenvis or all Shenvis are Smarthas. I understand only Shenvis eat fish, is that correct? Can we discuss a little more of the community? I will not make any more edits(other than protect existing content) on the community page unless my concepts are clear. I have put Shenvi in bracket of every controversial statement in the text in varna section, so that it is very clear to the reader. About the matha you mention above, the controversies do not apply to them as they are not Shenvi.LukeEmily (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmilySorry for late reply. Coming to point, Shenvis are not just those who have the surname Shenoy. They also adopted other GSB surnames such as Kamat etc. As per my research, these Shenvis gave Shenoy surname to other GSBs as the title for some competitions. So, to be clear we cannot say all GSBs with the surname Shenoy are Shenvis. So, only GSBs know who are Shenvis among them. No other can tell about them except they themselves. So we cannot say just Shenvis are Smarthas. Kavle Matha (Gaudapadacharya Math) is also the oldest Matha of GSBs which was founded by Gaudapadacharya himself who was guru of Govinda Bhagavatpada who was guru of Adi Shankara. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LukeEmily&diff=1082751082&oldid=1082750883, you left an unencylopaedic and borderline rude comment which was swiftly deleted? Why is that? ThanksRuudVanClerk (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, Because I got your message and check the edit history of the Koeri page. You reverted the changes twice and are warning me with the 3RR? Is that correct? Anyway, I am not going to revert it now but someone else will since you have violated wikipedia consensus mentioned by Sitush (I had mentioned it in the edit summary). edit: "Look who is talking" means that you yourself are doing that - and is not rude but pointing to the facts.LukeEmily (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you now understand. What do you mean by “someone else”? This could be linked to possible meatpuppetry.RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, No. By someone else I mean literally "anyone else" who edits wikipedia. If no one reverts it, I might do it myself after 24-48 hrs. The reason is because there is a consensus on wikipedia that I pointed you to here. No editor can violate a long established consensus. See this diff [4]. Please understand this rule. LukeEmily (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you self revert based on Sitush's comments.LukeEmily (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LukeEmily; regarding recent removal of quote on Rajput article here diff It was a accidental revert not anything intentional. At times editing through a computer is quite tough. Re; this quoation removal was not in bad faith. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Packer&Tracker, I understand, it can happen while copy pasting.LukeEmily (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, I think removal of the below text on the Lohana page was unneceassary.

There are views of them being Vaishya but they were originally Kshatriya.^[2] Historian C.V. Vaidya confirms this in his book, History of Medieval Hindu India in which it says that the Lohanas appear to have been originally Kshatriyas.^[3] They also had a king called Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.^[4] They were frequently portrayed as a military caste in Prithviraj Raso.^[5] The community could be traced back to 300 BC.^[6]

Why are you removing such edits? Are you trying to erase the important Kshatriya history of the Lohanas? As the text The Jornal of Sind Historical Society says, "A quick glimpse of the Lohana shows that they belong to warrior class."

Your reasons for removing this text with its citations (sources) are and I quote, "please do not use Raj era - pre-independence non-academic sources or race theorists for caste articles."

 • Do you realise that The Journal of Sind Historical Society is an academic source? Do you also realise that these are not Raj Era sources, these sources are from Indians themselves.

 • Prithviraj Raso is a very important epic in India. The Lohanas were part of this epic as warriors. Why are you trying to dissolve their Kshatriya heritage.

 • The Chachnama which is another epic refers to Agham Lohanas dynasty. Why do you want to remove the Lohana's Kshatriya Heritage?

 • We use epics as sources in various wikipedia pages such as the Rajputs, including Prithviraj Raso itself.

 • How are these race theories? They are certainly not, since Lohanas in these sources such as Chachnama and Prithviraj Raso are portrayed as rulers and warriors. Hence the designation of Kshatriya. The Lohanas did not come up with these things and write these epics themselves so these are not race theories written by race theorists.

 • Of course epics that were written, are before the Raj Era, and they are still used as sources.

Please stop this unnecessary removal of edits.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are views of them being Vaishya but they were originally Kshatriya.^{[1][unreliable source?]} Historian C.V. Vaidya confirms this in his book, History of Medieval Hindu India in which it says that the Lohanas appear to have been originally Kshatriyas.^{[2][unreliable source?]} They also had a king called Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.^{[3][unreliable source?]} They were frequently portrayed as a military caste in Prithviraj Raso.^{[4][unreliable source?]}

Now you have marked the sources of this text with the tag, "Unreliable source?"

Your reasons stated were and I quote, "tagged with unreliable sources. Harsh54, we can discuss on talk page. Raj era implies that any publication before 1947 (even if they are Indian). Vaidya believed is now disproven race theories and has been called hopeless by modern historians. For non-contentious issues, there is usually no problem with pe-Independence sources. Please see WP:HISTRH. Modern high quality sources are needed for such extraordinary claims. Please find modern sources."

LukeEmily, what is so hard to understand? Anyone else nor I are making "such extraordinary claims". I don't think you have read or studied the epics such as Prithviraj Raso or the Chachnama, since if you had read and studied them you would have clearly seen the history of the Lohanas are warriors and rulers. Rulers and warriors are designated Kshatriya.

If you had read the Prithviraj Raso you would have come across the Lohanas being warriors, in the Chachnama you would have come across the Lohanas being rulers such as Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.

Hence, I am not making "extraordinary claims" by adding the Lohanas as Kshatriya, since it is clearly evident from the epics such as Prithviraj Raso and Chachnama that they once were Kshatriya.

The epics such as the Prithviraj Raso and Chachnama are pivotal to Indian Culture. Please stop erasure of history and kshatriya heritage.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh54, please can you sign your name after your post? I am not planning to remove Kshatriya claim. I will add the Kshatriya claim with more scholarly sources. I have not read the texts you mention, and I do not know if an English translation is available, but they are considered primary sources. I looked at the respective pages of the books on wikipedia and both pages discuss the accuracy of the books, and their accuracy is disputed. Nevertheless, for caste claims such as Varna etc., a modern source is preferred, to counteract any other modern opinion. Please see WP:HISTRH. About Raj era references, please discuss with Sitush, as to why they are unreliable for contentious issues. Indian Raj era "scholars" who believed in British caste related racial theories of Aryans etc. are not reliable either. Anyway, let me replace it by reliable sources as per WP:HISTRH and I will keep the claim that the community claims Kshatriya origin based on the sources I have seen so far. The sources you have cited are about a century old.LukeEmily (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, in your response to my previous posts you mentioned and I quote, " I have not read the texts you mention, and I do not know if an English translation is available, but they are considered primary sources. I looked at the respective pages of the books on wikipedia and both pages discuss the accuracy of the books, and their accuracy is disputed.

Thank you for acknowledging that you have not read the Prithviraj Raso or Chachnama

Thank you for acknowledging that they are considered primary resources.

You say that their accuracy is disputed when you read their respective Wikipedia projects but did you literally read the second paragraph on the Wikipedia page of Prithviraj Raso in which it says, "It is debatable like any other historical text in the world."

As the last sentence on the second paragraph on the Prithviraj Raso Wikipedia page says that "It is debatable like any other historical text in the world" infering to the fact that Prithviraj Raso's historical accuracy is disputed just like the accuracy of any other historical sources in this world.

Whether the historical source is ancient or modern their historical accuracy always remains disputed to an extent, since everything is not accurate nor precise. Even in science, there is a degree of inaccuracy no matter how many precautions you to decrease the amount of errors. This is because human is to error.

So my question to you is, Isn't the historical accuracy disputed in most historical sources and not only in the Prithviraj Raso?

So regardless of historical inaccuracy as is the case for most historical sources in the world, the Prithviraj Raso is a very important epic that shows the Lohana as warriors and hence their Kshatriya heritage.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh54, I am only following the rules of wikipedia of not using primary sources. You can refer to the accuracy section on the same page of Raso.LukeEmily (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LukeEmily, regarding Anirudhh55's edits, please keep WP:3RR in mind. For reporting stubborn disruptive editing, WP:ANI and WP:ANEW might be better noticeboards, as it rarely comes with an intent to damage the encyclopedia and is thus usually not "vandalism". ((subst:Template:GS/alert|sasg)) may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for your help. My apologies for reporting it to the wrong noticeboard. LukeEmily (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it led to action, "wrong" would be an overstatement, though. :) No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the nomadic tribe status in the article which has been getting consistently removed. @LukeEmily: has argued that the sources are talking about only J&K and rest are not into that profession. However, what I didn't mention that nomadic profession is followed by all Gujjars and it is the only profession. I mentioned it along with already mentioned pastoral and agricultural activities. This nomadic profession is followed by them in the whole Himalayan belt {Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand (India), Azad Kashmir(Pakistan)}. (Reference: ^[1][2][3]). And, this region constitutes a large chunk of Gujjar population (source:^[4]), so can't be ignored. Hence, I urge to not remove my referenced articles. I wanted to add this on the Gujjar article's talk page, but couldn't, so I'm writing to you directly. Regards. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read your post on Gurjar talk page and answered it there. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey luke, I hope you are doing absolutely fine. You are doing fine work in caste related articles, so can you please check the Bengali Kayastha article which was a matter of dispute from so long? The neutrality of that article is still not right in my opinion, where literature and puran part is completely missing unlike Baidya article. since you have so much experience in caste articles I am requesting you to please review and rewrite that article, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Hindi If yes then this is a book published by Lucknow University which was published in 1953. In which Lohana are clearly called Kshatriyas.[5] Add this if it seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.105.198 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide translation of the line in english? Who is the author of the 1953 source? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lohana is the name of a caste spread in western India, Sindh and Kutch. Formerly they were Rajputs of Rathor dynasty. who were expelled from Kannauj to Sindh. Later they came to Kutch.

Author: Vipin Vihari Trivedi, Publisher: Lucknow University 117.228.74.177 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajput mention is already there on the page. Is Trivedi the author or a translator? I have no objections to adding this if it is his own conclusion but I think it is already mentioned in another form.LukeEmily (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know Hindi and Sanskrit then why are you editing the history of any Indian race? It means you have some ulterior motive. 117.228.63.96 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing wikipedia I did not even know what Lohana was. I did not know if it was a city, plant or caste. So how could I have ulterior motives?LukeEmily (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are back, though i am less active and will just revert vandalism, i think you will do some work, so this one for you. :) Admantine123 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Admantine123. Actually I am taking break very soon -in a day or so :-). On second thoiughts, will work on couple of articles that are plain wrong and then take a break. LukeEmily (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Admantine123, I meant to write. The bread was delicious  :-) but I do not eat meat. But I love ice-cream, coffee, fruits, feel free to send them my way next time :-) Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey luke TB is mentioning the Varna of Baidyas in the lead. Kindly check that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LukeEmily/reference

Hi LukeEmily.. please note that Nobita456 has been indefinitely blocked; you may check the discussions here, User talk:Bishonen, resulting in the block. You need not ping Nobita any more! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update @Ekdalian:. I went through the history - ban was related to some personal attacks I think. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right; Nobita possibly started personal attacks after being banned from Baidya & Bengali Kayastha articles! On a lighter note, Nobita used to like you a lot, and used to call you 'Luke'! Ekdalian (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Dola Pratha. It is difficult to ascertain the birth and origin of such a practice as it existed as far back as 'dalit memory' can...

[6]

This source talks about Dola Pratha, can you copy quote from it , so that i can add it on that article, as presence of case of particular village is cited as pretext to remove the sourced content. Plz, copy a big part explaining it, so that any mistake like it's prevalence in a particular village do not occur. Admantine123 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw your edits on Jats, I was just planning to add another reference to it where many communities is used. The certain region in the edit summary is not correct as jats are mostly found in Rajasthan ( the Rajputana), Punjab, United Provinces. These are the regions where 95+% jats live. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified it to make it sound more general after adding another reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting it, you can put it on pages of those communities. I hope we cannot have two logics on Wikipedia, one for X community pages and other for Y. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since you are removing it, you must add it before to other community pages and only after that remove it there. Otherwise revert your own edit to the last best as of now till the discussion on other matters are over. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LukeEmily, the section is already small and not bulky enough, so not needed to have separation till now. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a discussion on the topic, till then request you not make any contrary changes to your liking. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akalanka820, I am not making any changes to the issues related to the topic under discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article Bihari Ahir has a lots of problem from top to bottom including misquoting of reference, poorly referenced material etc. I removed WP:RSCASTE, other such. But it needs a lot of work there. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LukeEmily, sorry to disturb you. According to your advice, I have initiated a discussion in WP:DRN regarding the Karana-Kayastha connection. You can find it here. Thanks. Have a great day. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, thanks Satnam2408. I will comment there but you can also ping other editors who were involved in discussion such as Sitush, TB etc. , just in case if they want to comment.LukeEmily (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LukeEmily, according to your advice, I have already informed them. TrangaBellam was avoiding S.Asia-related discussion and refused to do so in the near past when Ekdalian requested him for discussion regarding Banu; hence I was avoiding disturbing him. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eknath Shinde became CM, cheers Admantine123 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, not much interest in Indian politics. Also, a teetotaler but thanks :-) Cheers @Admantine123:! Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, LukeEmily I came here to inform you that a consensus regarding the Karana-Kayastha connection was achieved. You may check it in the WP:DRN. It would be included in the Bengali Kayastha article. When I came, I saw that the previous citations were repeated whenever a new section was created. I have deployed reflist containers in every section where sources were cited. Remaining all are intact. I have not changed anything else. You may check the edit history. Have a great day. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Satnam2408 and Ekdalian:, I did not check the details but thank you for working together to resolve this. FYI, "National Integration in Historical Perspective" (page 124) by Rabindra Nath Chakraborty mentions the Brahmin origin/status of both Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas. It says Baidyas were considered Brahmins at one time and the Bengali kayasthas may have descended from Nagara Brahmins who settled in Bengal. You might want to take a look since you both work on Bengali articles. I am trying to stay away or reduce involvement in caste related articles at least for some time until I finish some work on the long overdue Niti Shatakam and Vairagya Shatakam(gathering sources for now) that I have been planning since 2020.LukeEmily (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is regarding these edits. The IP is a sock of User:Prince Of Roblox, and have been adding these sources and content before in other articles. It would be nice if you could replace/update those news sources with scholarly sources. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, sure. Will try to find some sources. Also, are you familiar with Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin? What is this community? Is there another community called "Rajapur Saraswats"? This book by Singh^[1] says that Rajapur Saraswats are Dalits but I am not sure if it is a different community. That community "Rajapur Saraswats" (non-Brahmin) does not have a page on wikipedia. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only familiarity is that I've seen it linked in Sachin Tendulkar's article (which needs to be removed per self-identification policy). There are many WP:FORKS it seems. The Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin article seems to be one such case, forked out of the larger Saraswat Brahmin article, and skimming through it looks full of original researches. The original version of it [7], is totally unsourced. If possible, it should be merged back to the main article. I don't know about the Dalit caste either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fylindfotberserk: Many of the statements in saraswat and Daivadnya related articles are WP:OR. I am not too familiar with either of them but have been looking as sources and it seems that several authors have pointed out that in the south GSB were a trading community and only claim descent from the Gaud Saraswats of the north which the local Brahmins did not accept. It is not an established fact. Sanskrit scholar Deshpande has even pointed out a Sanskrit verse that has been sloppily interpolated(his words) to make their claim look genuine. Any article that uses low quality sources for extraordinary varna claims is generally a suspicious article. Hopefully, we can get an expert who knows more about these communities. Sitush has also expressed concern for both articles in the past as per the talk pages. There is also a Rajapura community which is OBC. Not sure if it is different from Rajapur Saraswat.LukeEmily (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have added this but didn't specified which area ? Here- [[8]], it is very important to note that a lot of the people from this community fought against British in 1857 in the Gangetic plain Even there were many such revolts in late 1700s. There are books on those leaders who took part in the revolt. It would be better to clarify the state/region which has been talked about here. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akalanka820, OK. Agreed.LukeEmily (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you added this-[[9]], the writer on page 109 is clearly talking about 1870, in the top line he mentions. Can't have everything what a writer says on a community page? By this attempt we will have whole book pasted here. I have removed it in good faith. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in Rajaraja I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Rajendra Chola I, Rajendra Chola II says they were Shaivites, but it is being hijacked by some editors' POV. Please take a look into it. 2409:4073:4E0A:37A9:A9DB:DBBC:AB1B:5FC5 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are interested, please join the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu mythological and devotional cinema. 2409:4073:4D81:8F4:78AC:BD2E:F197:F02E (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. ~~~~ Jonathansammy (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the ping function and do not copy the user-name from signatures. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that both are not the same, anyway its about the R1a1 Y-DNA of Z93 Z94 Lineage who are found in both the Brahmin caste and in some few roma men. So why I and all male Members of my family have then the same y-dna like a brahmin?, DNA tests shows clearly north india Because roma is said came once from India. Rom baro (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many Rajputs originated from South India, such as the Rathor Rashtrakutas, Solanki Chalukyas, and Rajputs such as the Guhil Chauhans originated from southern Rajasthan, the Gurjara Pratiharas and Parmar Rajputs also originated from southern Rajasthan, who later fought the Turks. After reaching Khyber and Potohar, some Rajputs mixed up with Indo Hunnic people (due to marriage relations with Indo Hunnic women) 103.206.177.49 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles with the topic name "Pawar" , "Puar" and Panwar are in poor state. I can see use of poor unreliable sources to put the pseudo historical fact on Wikipedia. I have tried to remove some of them. Since, you are more aware in this topic area, you can check them. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rajputra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajputra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajputra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	We feel blessed to have an editor like you. Your advice, quick response and all your efforts to improve an article are appreciable. I have learned a lot from you. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Satnam2408:. But I am not that good or competent as most other editors (such as TB). My knowledge is limited to mostly varna mobility rather than a specific caste. I wish I could help more on some topics. Actually, you deserve the Barnstar much more than I do for your patience and understanding. I personally feel that the Baidya article has a bit trenchant mentioning of the word "shudra" - many times. Once or twice should have been enough. The more appropriate title for the current article is "Baidya as per Scriptures" rather than "Baidya". I think we should discuss on how a balanced view could be presented.LukeEmily (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this message, and felt that I should respond! You are no less than TB; everyone has their strengths & weaknesses, and you have your own set of skills; you are one of our best editors! I would like to mention here that Satnam2408 has been doing pretty good as a comparatively new editor! Cheers. Ekdalian (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ekdalian. You are one of the Best editors I have ever seen.Satnam2408 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

I hope, now LE will remove that frustrated template from his user page, as now many editors are praising him for his edits. There was a time when he used to be criticised by others, who had some sort of bias or affiliation with any of the caste group present here on Wikipedia.Repeated attacks forced LE to become less active here.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words @Ekdalian:, @Admantine123: and @Satnam2408:.LukeEmily (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[10], if you get time, please go through page 218-20 of this source and let me understand the context in which various caste groups are booked by police during Non Cooperation movement. I read some of the pages and understood that during non Cooperation movement, some castes are participating in it and they are becoming strict in enforcing the code of non cooperation, meanwhile, punishing the violators of those codes. In the meantime, a group attacks police (colonial) and people from various castes were booked by colonial authorities. If it is to be used on a caste page, how should we go ?-Admantine123 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123:, sorry for the late reply. I will go through it. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have your mail id, so that we can discuss some of the content outside wiki.-Admantine123 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Admantine123:, I could see only some of the pages. which caste page are you planning to add it to? Even if it is mentioned it will be probably better to mention it as a single statement without going into detail. I don't have email associated with my wiki account but will add one in the future. However, please feel free to post on my talk page directly. LukeEmily (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you format the citation in this INB comment for the comment itself or is it from an article? Curious because no way should we be using any source from 1968 which speaks of genetics - it is obviously not going to be reliable. I'd be surprised if any useful genetics studies of castes & tribes had even taken place then, and the human genome wasn't mapped until decades later. So any conclusions are likely based on discredited theories of anthropometry, scientific racism etc. If that source is used anywhere, it should be replaced, regardless of the supposed academic standing of Gadgil & Karve. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, I copied it from a conversation earlier(2022 or 2021) but it is on the Kunbi page as a citation from at least a decade. Please see this 2012 version. Although the citation is present, it is irrelevant to the text i.e. the text does not mention genetics. I will remove it from the page. I am aware of not using genetics on any caste pages and had no intention of using that citation anywhere. Will add something about not using genetics on my "consensus" page where I have mostly copied your comments from your various chats- here User:LukeEmily/reference Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. LukeEmily, why you removed the Gavli and Koli from this article. The source is already available in the book name Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay By Thomas Blom Hansen on page number 31 with the texts as The exact empirical boundaries of the Maratha caste cannot be estab lished without looking at the past in terms of the present. Nineteenth- century sources allow several interpretations. In the District Gazetteer of Thane from 1882, for instance, Kunbis, Agris and Kolis were all described as discrete castes, and yet, within each, elite layers were called "Maratha- Agris," "Maratha-Kolis" (115-29), and so on, which indicated the use of the Maratha label as a symbol of superiority even within caste groups not connected to Marathas in endogamous terms. In the District Gazetteer of Pune from 1882, Kunbis were described as falling into two classes, Kanbis and Marathas, that could not be clearly discerned (p. 284). In the 1931 census Marathas and Kunbis were lumped together in one category & link is here [[11]] as 4th reference in article. KoliMarathaKolhapure (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!@LukeEmily Since you are actively editing Indian castes and related topics. I am requesting you to also check the page Ror Dynasty which was deleted earlier. Recently the page was recreated by a user who was eventually blocked for his disruptive behaviour. Thanks for your attention. Regards, Nirmohiji (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ever watchful eye, @Fylindfotberserk:. I think Ekdalian restored the page to its proper version. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something happening with my interface. When I try to thank, it rollbacks. Thinks are jumbled. Thanks and welcome . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one thing. Is this addition correct. This new user is a caste POV pusher. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check these changes, thanks. Pinging @Admantine123:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D you think this needs to be banreverted considering the recent SP activity? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk:, yes I agree. The sock misrepresented what was written by Lewitt, however, another diligent editor Ekdalian already made the reverts.LukeEmily (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Emily, Please read that community page once.Except negative point nothing is there and that points are misleading as shenvis doesn’t represent GSB as a whole.The source is not giving full information instead it is selective approach.Even the information provider has reached the extent to question the Varna status with random authors name without research background.So open the page for editing as many valid and high level source are there.That page looks more like the page of shenvis than GSB. Pondakar (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You deserve it. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @LukeEmilyI hope you know the importance of Wikipedia.Anyone can add the information based on the correct reference.I wonder how can you delete the information which is correctly cited without any discussion,Just by mentioning someone’s name you cannot delete the information written by me with the correct reference.I know you may belong to any Caste in that or you may hate some caste or you may have point of view against/infavour of any caste.But while editing you must be neutral.So don’t take anything personally(WP:OR)(WP:POV).Even I have mentioned from where I have copied items and which book I have refered,My IP is available right here don’t you think tools can be used Incase of any socks.So revert the content and don't involve in vandalism.Mr.@EkdalianI am taking you to loop as I saw you are active in that page. 2409:40F2:8:A3F0:5D14:7DA3:50D3:EC15 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LukeEmily, wishes you a happy and prosperous new year. I hope this new year brings you joy, success, and wonderful moments with your loved ones. Here's to a fresh start in the year ahead. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 18:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Happy new year to you too @Satnam:. LukeEmily (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this, which was added because of an edit request [12]. The person requesting may by the sockfarm we know. Please check. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fylindfotberserk:. Defintely a sockfarm. Not sure what to do about this. There is a new user on the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin talk page too. They all seem to have the same agenda to remove anything controvertial.LukeEmily (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both as well as few other accounts got blocked in the latest SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]