Rajkris

Can you please take a look at whats happening on the Aryan page,,you may know neutral authorities who can stop whats happening,,valid informaton is being deleted in relation to the Gaelic word Tara as having possible links with the word Aryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettheirbelight777 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Edits such as this are not acceptable. Read WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. You are not to lash out with personal attacks at people just for disagreeing with you. If they are wrong, show that they are wrong civilly, using published references.

Wikipedia cannot put up with unchecked feuds and caste-related bickering on talkpages. Also read WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. Be aware that repeated offence can result in your account being blocked. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags

Please dont remove maintennace tags as you have done here. These tags are to improve the quality of our project. Taprobanus (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hi....

Just checked Dutiful Warrior. It is still there, not deleted. -Axxn (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You have been warned about edit warring. Do not edit other people's comments on Talk pages, like you did at Talk:Kshatriya. Woogee (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, my notice to you was a mistake. I apologize. These things could be prevented if you used edit summaries. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at MDesjardinss's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Velirs

I'm not an admin. You should go to WP:AIV. Woogee (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Madras Regiment

Thanks for noticing the vandalism. Gave him a warning here. Axxn (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kshatriya

I think we could request for page protection here. Axxn (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at SpacemanSpiff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

no probs... 122.177.225.232 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack.Able & Zero.vishnu

I don't think so. Zero.vishnu seems to be someone from Kerala, as he has edited only Nair and Kshatriya articles. Not sure abt the other guy, but he seems to be from TN. Axxn (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain your observations in the "Evidence submitted by Rajkris" field. Axxn (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it for now. If they again indulges in vandalism then we already have the proof to ban them. So plz wait for a few days. Axxn (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:Jack.Able / Zero.vishnu sockpuppet

Hello Rajkris, just leaving you a quick note to let you know I have dealt with this case now (albeit with some assistance). I have closed the case with no action taken besides from tagging the two accounts as alternative accounts. You can view the archived case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zero.vishnu/Archive. Let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, nearly everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, there is no obligation upon anyone to do anything (see WP:VOLUNTEER). Secondly, SPI is only for dealing with cases of sockpuppetry, and that has now been dealt with. If you have other issues with what the user is doing then you need to take that elsewhere (the user's talk page would be a good place to start, and then AN/I if the problem continues). Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Raj.. you can just click on the time stamp given in history tab (for eg: 18:38, 16 February 2010). Then you'll get the old version. Click on "edit" and save without making any changes. Hope this will help. Axxn (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Can you take a look at this ? It says that "the "Chera, Chola, and Pandya rulers were all Kshatriyas and belonged respectively to the races of of the Fire, the Sun and the Moon respectively". Axxn (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

sanskrit

Why don't you actually read the article, and the OED, before making assumptions. I assure you that you will get nowhere accusing me of vandalism, since I am restoring the longstanding state of the page before it was vandalised by someone writing nonsense about Polish. If you read up on the history of the word you will see it comes from Indo-Iranian. The Arya/Airya distinction is irrelevant to its adoption in English. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly explained on the talk page why the article has for a long time said what it does . Paul B (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The most authoritive dictionary is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), which gives the earliest uses referring to Iran, and not derived from Sanskrit, so please don't tell me to "check any dictionary" when you clearly have not checked the most authoritative one yourself. Also read the article, which clearly describes the history. You are assuming you are right because you are speaking from preconceptions as an Indian. Look at the actual facts. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not my POV at all, but universally accepted within wikipedia (and elsewhere). Paul B (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aryan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hmm.... saw it. Needs some time to fix it. Too complex. I myself got a 3RR and 2 day ban a few days ago. Needs to be careful. I think we should raise a debate in the talk page. Axxn (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok no pb. But keep a watch on Arya & Aryan pages. We must fix them even if it will take time. I have already started.Rajkris (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Saw your post. I am not much informed about Tamil Kshatriyas and created the article just because it was red linked for a very long time. I encourage you to modify the article if you are having the right references. Thanks a lot. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryan and politics behind it.

Hi Rajkris, Noticed your comments for the Aryan which to me seems very valid. This word was not a real self designator to Iranians, was not significant to the ancient Persians. In fact there is no trace of this word in any Persian or Arabic literature, till early to mid 20th century. The word was used as a backing for German propaganda as the king Shah was pro German. The sentiment remained within the ultra nationalist movement, but after the Islamic revolution this Aryan race theory has become the corner stone of Nationalist propaganda. No need to say it works as an alienation factor for many non Persian ethnic groups. Regards Mehrdad (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Added my comments to the discussion page of Aryan. Thanks Mehrdad (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hi,ok can you tell me which all tamil communities hold the mudaliar title and are all mudaliars vellalar or not.also there are some blogs taking abt scythian origins of particularly the Thuluva vellalar clan and some mudaliars.can you provide some scholarly links to this theory or is it just a hoax.thank you.Linguisticgeek (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

no probs,take your own sweet time.was just curious that's it.Linguisticgeek (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is called removing sources. I do not want to get admins involved in this, but you are clearly removing the sources. No where does the article says it is about usage in Sanskrit. First move the page to (Sanskrit usage). Else do not remove sources please.

TEST

The word Arya written & pronounced in this way is Sanskrit (see below: Encylcopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 9). In the Persian/Iranian culture, literature there are a few refs to words such as 'Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)oi(n)/etc.'. Scholars agree that the Indian 'Arya' and the Persian 'Airya' must have a common root but their definition seems different: whereas the Persian definition may have an ethno-linguistic connotation (but there is no agreement among scholars on that, contrary to what is claimed here), the Indian Arya means Noble/Lord/etc. The most ancient reference to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Vedas and there is no any ethnical, racial or national connotation... It was used to designate those who developed & adhered to the Vedic culture, religion, more specifically those who worshipped the Devas and especially Indra (see below: Encyclopaedia Britannica, ref2 to ref6) and, at later time, the Hindu religion/culture and more generally the Arya Dharma (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism). Those who belonged to this community were called Aryas (Noble/Civilised), those who did not, were called Anaryas (Non noble/Barbarians/Uncivilised). Inside this community, the high castes were considered as Aryas whereas the lower ones were Anaryas. Among the higher castes, the perfect Aryas were the Kshatriyas (Hindu aristocraty). The place where Hinduism was practiced in its most orthodox way was called Aryavarta (the abode, [sacred] land of the Arya(n)s), Aryadesha (see below ref9); the borders of Aryavarta may have changed throughout times but Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Pakistan and other central asian areas have never, never been part of Aryavarta ... One more important precision: in the ancient Iranian/Persian culture, in the Avesta, the Devas used to be considered as devils!...

Even if it has a common root, the Persian/Iranian equivalent is written & pronounced differently: airya, ari(i)ya, arioi(n), etc., and this historical difference must respected so as not to make any confusion. Above all, there are few refs to this word in the whole persian literature; so telling that this word was significant in the Persian civilisation is not true. The best example are the Parsis from India: they are scions of the ancient persians in term of ethnicity and religion but they have never called themselves Erya (Airya); why ? Just because this word was neither significant nor a real self designator. Ethnically speaking, Parsis are much more related to the ancient Persians than nowadays inhabitants of Iran (thanks to, because of the caste system in India). Iran has never been a populous area and it has been invaded a lot by different nomadic tribes (Indo Europeans, Semite Arabs, Turks, Mongols).This word became significant in the persian world only recently (last century) by the will of Reza Shah Pahlavi and its supporters who were certainly influenced by the Nazis when they decided in 1935 to rename the country after the ancient Sassanide empire name Eran (see link 1); Only from this period the word Arya (written & pronounced in this way) started being used in a very significant way (iranian people started using arya as name, restaurants, garages started bearing arya name, arya cities, universities were created, etc.). The problem is only a minority of the people were attracted by this new mode.The Iranian people did not understand anything to this so called Aryan myth and pathetic shows such as:[16]. This is one of the reason for the failure of this government: Shah of Iran and its government ultimate goal was to get rid off Islam but they did not realize that the Iranian people were very attached to this religion. These links, articles give a good description, explanation of the Iranian Aryan myth: link 2, link 3 & link 4.

Some Iranian (nationalists) prefer, nowadays, to use the sanskrit word Arya because (this is my opinion) it is more closed to the word Aryan (which derives from this sanskrit word) than Iranian Airya/Ariya. For that purpose, they are using refs from books written by (western)scholars who mix sanskrit arya with persian erya/ari(i)ya. The pb is since nearly 2 centuries, many (so called) scholars have written many wrong things concerning this word; these so called scholars have a clear responsibility in the development of the Aryan racial theories in Europe (see below ref1 and ref10) and consequently, they have a clear (moral) responsibility for the extermination of 6 million jews (Nazis killed them because of this one word)... This is clearly an history falsification, manipulation.

The other pb is that some people are trying to link arya with an ethnical connotation which is wrong:

1) The most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the Rig Veda and contains no ethnical connotation, national connotation
2) Notions such as Ethnicity, Nationalism, Race are modern concepts which dates back to the 18th century. Applying them to describe the ancient world is very doubtful.
3) Iran has always been a mixture of people of different origin even at the time of the Persian empire... How can some people try to associate an ethnical purity to this country especially nowadays, at a time when more & more scholars tell that the civilisation which has played the most important role in the development of Iran was the Elamite civilisation. Some Iranian are working on Wikipedia to give a fake image of Iran based on a fake ethnical identity...

The references given by Iranians to support their claim of an Iranian Arya are wrong:

-“…Iranian arya [with a short a]…” --> Arya, even with a short ‘a’, is a Sanskrit word (see: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ref2, Ref4, Ref8); even if nowadays some Iranians prefer to use the word Arya (because more closer to Aryan) instead of their own words Airya/Ari(i)ya, the roots of Arya are Sanskrit.
-"ARYA an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition” --> the problem here is that in the Achaemenedid inscriptions it is written ‘Ariya’ and in the Zend language ‘Airya’. It is the author himself who prefer to use the term Arya & therefore, it is author POV and does not correspond to historical reality. The other point is “’ariya: ariyaciça’…The phrase with ciça, “origin, descendance,” assures that it is an ethnic name” --> The translation “Noble from Noble lineage” would also fit (really curious that a king does not mention his noble origins; only 'peasant' background people can think that a king would be prefer to mention his so called ethnical identity instead of his noble, aristocratic origins...)…

Here are the main problems with this article:

- “Arya is an old Indic and Iranian…” --> very wrong: Arya (written & pronounced in this way) is clearly, without any doubt a Sanskrit, Old Indic but NOT (Old) Iranian word or so called Indo Iranian… In the Iranian/Persian history, literature we find similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)o(i) suggesting a common origin…
- "Significant to Zorastrians" --> not true (see Parsis who never called themselves Airya/Ari(i)ya)
-"In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is a national name, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves" --> very wrong; the most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Veda and there is no any etchnical, national, racial connotation!... Were considered as Aryas those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture, religion. None of the refs support this sentence.

Some sentences, parts, writes in this article does not correspond to proper academical sources and above all to historical reality, that is: Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya Iranian & Aryan is an English (loan) word derived from Sanskrit Arya meaning ‘Noble’.” Iranian Arya” is a POV made by some scholars and does not correspond to historical reality.

Concerning the Iranian chapter, its presence is useful but some corrections need to be done; ex: “Iran means ‘Land of Arya” is not correct, a correct translation would be ‘Land of Airya’ because Iran comes from Eran --> Airan --> Airyan --> Airyanam… As user Fullstop (who has rejected articles from Encyclopaedia Iranica shown by some users) already mentioned, some Iranian editors do not correctly translate their sources; for ex, on Gerardo Gnoli articles, the author uses the historical Iranian terms Airya or Ariya whereas in the wiki articles it is written “(Iranian) Arya”. I have also the strong feeling that ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’ (at least some articles) gives a biased image of Iran based on a fake ethnical purity… I think this it is financed by some Iranians based abroad and who are close to the Shah of Iran ideology…

As a conclusion: Arya is a Sanskrit, old Indic self designator meaning ‘Noble’ (see Encycopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 8). The term is significant to Hindus, Buddhists & Jains. In the Iranian literature, there are a few refs to similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya, suggesting a common origin.
In its oldest recorded forms, Sanskrit Arya was used to designate those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture.
Some sentences of this article must be rewritten in concordance with proper academic sources and above all historical reality.

Thank you for your attention; i will also add my comments & arguments on the Aryan wiki page asap.

REFERENCES

Encylopaedia Britannica [17]

(This article is a summary of what is said about the word Aryan by nowadays proper scholars)

Former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism.

However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family.

In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan” for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.”

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning.

Ref 2: Aryans and British India By Thomas R. Trautmann [18]

"Aryan is from Arya a sanskrit word..."

“… by a name taken from Sanskrit Arya or Aryan” page 2

"Although the word arya is a sanskrit one," page 6

“…name of the race that immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta, opposed to an-arya, Dasyu, Dasa (although here we would have to say that the use of the word race and the reference to Central Asia comes from European ideas and not from Sanskrit texts)” page 12

"The Aryan concept is the central idea of the twentieth-century fascims, and the fact that it was developed by scholars raises the question of the role shcolars have played in preparing the way for these appropriations..." pages 14/15

Ref 3: Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger,Merriam-Webster, Inc page 79 [19]

“Aryan (from Sanskrit Arya, ‘Noble’)”

"... In Vedic literature the term arya is used to distinguish privileged members of society from others"

Ref 4: Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain By Peter van der Veer [20]

"The sanskrit term arya which means 'honorable man'" page 138

Ref 5: The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history By Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton [21]

"Here, perhaps, it needs to be clarified that in the Vedic texts the word "Arya" was not used in any racial sense..." page 52

Ref 6: A survey of Hinduism By Klaus K. Klostermaier [22]

"... Making the self-designation arya (noble) a racial attribute of the putative invaders,..." page 18

Ref 7: Encyclopaedic dictionary of Vedic terms, Volume 1 By Parmeshwaranand (Swami.) page 120 to 128 [23]

"The Rgvedic passages reffering to the Aryas (...) conquering Dasas or Dasyus with the help of their gods, relate to that stratum of Aryan history when two groups of people seem to have settled on the land of (...). The two groups of people might have difference in colour, but the colour was not the main cause of difference between the two cultures. The only and sole factor responsible for the difference was the instituiton of sacrifice, which one believed while the other did not. One group, which believed, in Yajna and practically performed it, constituted the Aryan, the noble class and the other which did not believe in yajna constituted the Dasa or Dasyu class..."

"The Rgvedic passage showing the Aryans as being conquered by the gods along with the Dasas or Dasyus relate to that stratum of Aryan history when Aryan people were subdivided into many clans, and a king of one clan was fighting against the other, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the help of Dasas or Dasyus."

Ref 8: The British quarterly review, Volume 36 [24]

"Airya which is the equivalent in the Zend language for the Sanskrit arya,..." page 23

"This word ârya, with long a, is derived from arya with a short a, and this name arya is applied in later sanskrit... " page 24

"If it was 'originally a national name', of which, however, there is no proof, we confess we cannot well understand how,..." page 24

Ref 9: Essays on ancient India By Raj Kumar [25]

"I-tsing refers to India generally as the West, but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha (...), the noble region" page 172

Ref 10: Performativity and belonging By Vikki Bell [26]

"It is difficult to deny the complex imppact that some ideas in Vedic Hinduism did have in the reformation of some versions of German and French nationalism." page 74

"There is considerable debate about whether or not the Vedas and subsequent literature contained concepts that led directly to ideas of phenotypical 'race'" page 75

"One can accept that the word arya in the Rig-Veda (airya in the Avestan literature), referred to a quality that is usually translated as 'noble', rather than an ethnology, and certainly not an 'Aryan race'." page 75

LINKS

Link 1: [27]
"The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis."

Link 2: [28]
“However, all attempts by the Pahlavis in engendering the Aryan myth, Persianization of Iran and the Farsi language (…), were attempts from the top, lacking any real popular foundations. Except for a group of upper middle-class and descendants of a cluster of feudal families, Pahlavism was a joke, especially the theater of spectacle that the Shah put on to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of Achamenid dynasty.”

Link 3: [29]
“The false equation of language and race was widespread in the west between around 1850-1950, and some Iranians influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europeans, or "Aryans"”

Link 4:[30]
“It surprises us when we realize that just barely over half of all Iranians are actually ethnic Persians”; “We, who pride ourselves for being so closely related to the Hansels and Gretels of Europe, after all look too suspiciously similar to our Arab conquerors and brothers and cousins to the south, dark hair, dark eyes, big noses and all.”

Rajkris (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'ārya' and 'ārya dharma' in Thai

Regarding your recent post of TEST info ABOUT ARYA TO Arya's talk page, I do hope you read my remarks just above yours on the word's usage in Thai, and that the Thai antonym is Tamil, pronounced "ta-MEEN". --Pawyilee (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mahabharata-big.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mahabharata-big.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aryan

Please don't refer content disputes as vandalism, as you did here. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Aryan (Warning)

Hi. Please note that you are close to violating the three revert restriction on Aryan. May I suggest the article talk page as the venue for resolving your dispute with the other editor? --RegentsPark (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

You and Konguboy are both at somewhere around 5-8 reverts in the last 24 hours. I have requested that the page be fully protected so that you two stop. The two of you need to discuss this on the article page. Please note that edit warring is never acceptable, even when you think you are right. I'm not going to recommend you be blocked, although in your case I easily could since you've been warned about edit warring before.

Also, please 'never call someone a vandal unless they are actually vandalism. That word has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which you can read at WP:VANDAL. In short, though, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make it vandalism--that term is reserved for people actively and intentionally harming the encyclopedia, which is clearly not the case here. Calling a good faith edit vandalism can be considered a personal attack.

So, anyway, stop reverting (likely you'll have to, since the page will be fully protected), and talk this out on the talk page. Maybe I'll try to help the discussion, although it may take me a bit to figure out what's going on there. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, people are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page--you may NOT re-add that information. Read WP:USERPAGE, specifically WP:BLANKING. I also notice that above you were already warned about using the word vandalism incorrectly. I'm frankly worried about your ability to edit civilly and per our policies. So, please slow down, calm down, stop attacking other editors, and have discussions on article talk pages instead of just wildly reverting. Wikipedia requires collaboration--it's not about trying to force your own way. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you reverted again after me warning you, so I have no choice but to recommend you be temporarily blocked. Sorry, but that's the rules--this is a content dispute which requires discussion, not reversion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring

Hello Rajkris. You've been reported for edit warring on Tamil Kshatriya. Please see WP:AN3#User:Rajkris reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Rajkris reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: R and K blocked 24 h). EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just don't understand why do you place me at the same level as Konguboy. Since Friday night, I am engaged in a discussion in Tamil Kshatriya talk page, by giving my arguments. No one is able to counter them. But this does not prevent them from writing fake things...Rajkris (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because you didn't stop edit warring. This is clearly a problem you've had before. You have to understand--you cannot solve content disputes by edit warring. If you can't understand that, you're inevitably going to keep getting blocked, for longer and longer periods. I cannot stress enough that you need to go read WP:VANDAL, so that you can see that Konguboy's edits weren't vandalism, and thus don't qualify for the exception listed in WP:Edit warring. If the other editor refuses to discuss, then there are steps that can be taken (like, for instance, getting other users involved), but edit warring is simply not the way. I really hope you can understand this and follow through on it--it's clear that you want to improve Wikipedia, and are enthusiastic about it, but you have to go about it the right way. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can you please protect the Tamil Kshatriya page so as to engage in a clear discussion in the talk page. If they can prove that I'm wrong by providing proper, clear refs written by proper scholars, then no pb, i will let them write what they want... But for the moment, I have managed to find refs which tell the exact contrary of what they claim... The problem with caste related articles is that many people from labour, cultivator castes are trying to claim Kshatriya, Aristocratic background without proper refs or fake ones and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to discuss with them. If we let them do, more than 80% of Indian people would be Kshatriya...Rajkris (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, you're at 3 reverts now. I'm watching the page too (I'm obviously not on 24/7, but I will see changes that happen). Do not pass 3 reverts. It won't kill anyone if the wrong info is on the page for a few hours, okay? If the problem is caused by multiple IPs, we can request protection, but for now, just relax. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can I make an assumption that you are watching my talk page? It would save me a little work with talkbacks. No worries, though, if you would rather have the talkbacks as I do realise that my page attracts a lot of irrelevant (to you) stuff. Just let me know, either way. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion at WP:ANI. You can read it and respond if you wish at here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi Raj, Matthew Vannitas recently added that the meaning of the word Nair is dog here. Please advice me what I should do to notify the admins. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

test

[31].Rajkris (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[32]

Solar Race

Tamil Kshatriya - Singh article at resource exchange

Hi, what error did you get when you tried to download? I've just tried again & it came through ok for me. It's a PDF document. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Got just a white screen: [33].Rajkris (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I had problems at first, too; I had to do a right click and "Save link as" to get it to work. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok got it. Actually it was a browser pb, with IE8, it's working fine but not with the last version of Firefox.Rajkris (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you got it. IE9 sucks - I am constantly getting calls for support about it. FF s/b ok. What version? - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

FF 4.Rajkris (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's weird. Worked ok here. Anyway, all is well that ends well - you got the thing. Resource exchange is a fabulous, erm, resource. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

If you are going to post information that informs whether or not a merge should occur, merging procedures (see WP:Merging) require that it be placed in a single location--on the target of the proposed merge. Otherwise, everyone else who may be interested in the discussion has to follow two different discussion in two different places; information gets duplicated, it's hard to follow, etc. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if my merger proposal stressed you out. Please see my most recent comments on Talk:Kshatriya--I think you're actually misunderstanding what the proposal is. The quick summary is that it really is what it says: a proposal, i.e., a suggestion, an idea, a recommendation. If there is no consensus, the merger won't be done--instead, we'll keep talking about it, unless someone takes a more formal step. I absolutely do want your input. I thought that having others input at the same time might be helpful, too. Again, I mean no disrespect, nor do I have any intention of performing any drastic actions against consensus. 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya merge

I see that it's been about a week since you've been on, and I know you're really busy, but I'm just wondering if you have a tentative timeline when you might be able to get to providing more sources to support the existence of Tamil Khatriya? Mainly I'm wondering if this is a project you see yourself getting to in a time frame of weeks, or months, or if this is just something you think you might get around to eventually? I only ask because, while there is no WP:DEADLINE, if some of us want to pursue the next step in dispute resolution (which is probably an RfC), we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely. I'm especially interested to see how the discussion will proceed now that we have found that several of the "editors" are in fact part of a set of sockfarms (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488). Just to be clear, I am in no way tarring you with that brush, just pointing out that it's questionable just how much of an actual objection there was besides you. If you have some guess about how long it might take, it will help plan future steps. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya - warring

Hi mate, don't revert any further but thanks for your help. I have sent it to WP:3RRNB and they will be blocked shortly. If you revert again then you'll be on the edge also, and I don't want that to happen! - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Kshatriya

Even if those were reliable sources, nothing in that remvoed section is about Tamil Kshatriya specifically. Nothing there is specific to TN; as such, it can't be in the TN article. If it belongs (which depends on the source quality), it belongs in Kshatriya--just like i can't go add random information about India in general to the article Mumbai, or general biological info about human beings to the article Albert Einstein. Information does go haphazardly in WP; it has to go into the article it's clearly connected to. If you re-read what is written there, it is about Kshatriya in general, not the alleged Tamil Kshatriya in specific. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vellalar varna discussion

Thanks for your input. Please add new section and please move entire varna topic into that section. My bone is that if you are claiming Kshatriya status in the lead, then you should also put the sat-shudra controversy there. Thats why I put it there. Otherwise both of them go into the body of the article summarised into a neat section. I agree with your view on aryan/dravidian concept. Actually I first used the word aryan but then changed it into north indian because I feel the same way as you do about that. Reason I edited Vellalar is that Reddy and Vellalar are very similar castes and lot of similarity in social status. Foodie 377 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Report 122.. to be blocked

Hi , how are you doing? I have seen the absolute ridiculous edit warring by the IP 122... guy. I think it is high time you request him to be blocked at WP:ANI. Regards. Foodie 377 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya vandalism

Hiya, I see that you have just reverted at Kshatriya on the grounds that the recent contributions appear to be vandalism. I looked the edits a few hours ago and it seemed to me that what was being done amounted to an alphabetisation of the various dynasties. Did I miss something? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sitush (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aryan

I believe my rewording is more appropriate than the current one. Vedic is more specific and accurate than Hindu as many of the major deities of that period are not worshipped by Hindus (or minimally so). That's why most scholars, when discussing that period, choose to use Vedic rather than Hindu to refer to the religion, culture, way of life, etc. Furthermore, although Indra was a major god, he alone is not "closely related" to the term arya, etymologically or otherwise. There were other major gods too, such as Varuna, Agni, etc. And using the term "Brahmanical" is outdated; it was mostly in use during the 19th century. Depending on context, Vedic or Hindu is more appropriate. In this case, Vedic is what should be emphasized in this article to reflect that particular people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverknowledge (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have been reported for vandalism on the ANI page for repeatedly deleting referenced material from the Kshatriya article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rajkris Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

TEST

Sorry if you can't see the refs I have given, It is not my mistake... From now on, I will als give the title & page(s) of my ref so that you can check on your own if my links do not work properly.

Regarding Kshatriya, here are some refs about the definition, the conception of Kshatriya based on historical real truth and not brahmanical pov (that is to sum up: kshatriyas are the ruling class of the Hindu society, whether or not they are recognised as such by Brahmins):

• The Caste System of Northern India by EAH Blunt, page 26: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'" [34]
• Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier, page 82: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya." [35]
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: [36]
  

Regarding, Vellalar/Velir/Yadava: the ref I gave you so far, talked about the connection between the group called Velir/Vel with Yadava, regarding the history of Agastya & Velirs, this history is mentionned in the Tolkapiam, text written around 2000 years ago (see page 16 of the pdf doc). Regarding the connection between Velirs & Vellalar, Here are some recent refs (less than 20 years):

• The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom by Nicholas B. Dirks (1987) page 149 [37]
  
• Encyclopedia of world cultures: South Asia, Volume 2 page 304 (1996): "There is fairly strong literary and archeological evidence linking core Vellala subcastes with a group chieftains called Velir,..." [38]
  
• Boundary walls: caste and women in a Tamil community by Kamala Ganesh (1993), page 49: "However, it is possible to identify in selected areas, core Vellala groups with a fairly continuous and traceable history. A broad consensus links these groups with Velir: powerful chieftains of the Sangam period." [39]
  

Regarding the last doc about genetics, i wanted to show you that eventhough there were mixture with newly vellalar claiming people, those mixture were limited... Even nowadays upper Vellalars do not consider lower rank Vellalar as proper Vellalars. See page 6 of [40]: "The two Brahmins (Iyer and Iyengar) along with the high rank non-Brahmin formed a separate cluster."

Claimed members

− There are numerous communities that claim Kshatriya status. These include:

− −

• Marathas: of Maharashtra claim themselves as Kshatriyas. However, other groups are not. For example, the Maratha-Kunbis, who made up 31.19 percent of the population of the districts which came to constitute the state of Maharastra, were classified as Shudras, in the Census of 1931.

− −

• Rajputs: a warrior class of North India.

− −

• Rajus: claim to be Kshatriyas. It is claimed, from the medieval period, the term "Andhra Kshatriya" has been used synonymously with Rachavaru, Rajus and Telugu Kshatriya. However, the Madras District Gazetteers: Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur Districts records them as descendents of the Kammas and the classification of castes in Orissa took into account their supposed mixed parentage.

− −

• Shrestha subdivision among ethnic Newar is recognised as Kshatriya in Nepal.

− −

• The alien hordes that did not follow priestly customs or traditions (Shakas, Kushans, Indo-Greeks, Hunas and Parthians) were stated as Vratya Kshatriyas in Manusmriti.

− −

• Gurung and Magar ethnic groups are recognised as Kshatriyas in Nepal by the Bahun, along with other groups such as Thakore and Chhetri. They acquired a Kshatriya ritual position with Brahmins playing agents of transformation in the medieval period; with the whole system becoming codified in the 19^th century.

− −

• The Meitei of Manipur were claimed to be Kshatriyas by the Bengali and Assamese Brahmins and were posited to be the descendants of epic warrior Arjuna.

− −

• Vellalars: claim to have descended from the Tamil nobility, linked to Tamil royal lineages (Chera, Chola, Pandya) and claim Kshatriya status. However, their social group included those derived from lower-ranking peasant castes or Shudra agriculturists. The Vellalars did not follow ritualism for Kshatriyas as prescribed in the Dharmashastras; and the caste was classified as Shudra, with the Government of Madras in 1901 recognizing the 4-fold varna division did not describe the South Indian society adequately.

− −

• Nairs - The Nairs claim to be Kshatriyas. However, they were recognized as Shudras by the Namboodiri Brahmins of Kerala and in the colonial period census of India.

Be careful about the word vandalism

While I agree that User:Mylaptops's edits to Kshatriya are not helpful because they are unsourced and incomplete, they are most definitely not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for a full definition, but the short version is that vandalism only refers to spam and to edits intentionally made to make Wikipedia worse. I'm sure that Mylaptops thinks he's improving Kshatriya by adding that list, but he just doesn't seem to know yet that we would need sources for any list of that type (and, of course, we still wouldn't add it, because different sources would disagree...but I digress). Just revert and say something like "rv addition of unsourced, contentious information". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to pile up on you, and I appreciate that someone's actively watching an article that gets a lot of true vandalism, but here is another example of your use of the term when it's clearly not the case. We appreciate your efforts to keep that article clean, but to echo Qwyrxian's comment above, be very careful what you call vandalism. Labeling people's good-faith contributions as such is off putting and harmful to the project, since we're trying to attract more editors, not drive them away. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Aryan & Kshatriya are sensible pages, articles where many editors come for propaganda and ideology. Those pages cannot be managed like other (normal) articles.Rajkris (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. Nevertheless, our concerns about the quality and neutrality of the information in Wikipedia should be balanced with the importance of assuming good faith and being receptive to new contributors who want to help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aryan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rajkris. You have new messages at Dawn Bard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dzd

As a translation of Latin Ariānus ‘of Aria or Ariana (the eastern part of ancient Persia),’ Arian has long been in English use: Aryan is of recent introduction in Comparative Philology, and is also by many written Arian , on the ground that āria was the original word, as shown by the Vedic language, ārya being only the later Sanskrit form; the spelling Aryan has the advantage of distinguishing the word Arian (see Arius).

kshatriya article

the article which you keep posting provides very very less information — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhaySinghWiki (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Same to you

You must understand that people of Tamilakam were people who are having an independent culture which differs greatly from other Indians.Migration of Aryan people to south India occur only by migration of Brahmins to Tamilakam.You are presenting someone personal bias without respecting all those, Velirs do not find any mention as some ksytria clan as you posted nor carried out some Vedic rituals to be claimed as those clan in any Tamil inscriptions or historical text.--Tan Meifen (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey,enough of all those threathning words of yours in my talk page, your opinion of my edits or talks will not make my opinions biased to some agendas or someone as you mentioned, just trying to promote some historical facts as close as what had happened at past with a proper understanding of people which is a subject of some speculations.Well as a wikipedian i agree with u for some extent and hope will produce the references that is needed for my arguments from SLib.--Tan Meifen (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tan Meifen

It seems like he hasn't edited since you made your last warning. See how it goes ... if he goes back to it report him. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I blocked him for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya

Hi, Am looking for the earliest usage of the term Kshatriya in any of the dravidian languages. Please help if you can find the oldest usage of kshatriya in Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malyalam literature with dating please. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi Rajkris, there's a short thread at User_talk:Sitush#Kshatriya that you should be aware of. Hope you're ok - I've not seen much of you for a few months. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rajkris, please see Velir talk page. Left some issues for you to sort out. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Vellalar

Kindly explain removal of content which was thoroughly referenced, detailed and arranged in proper sections? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't like the way you remove others citations & ask to discuss.Rajkris (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Whose citations? You neither reply to points raised nor do your citations support the sentences you make. I suppose the only way is to take this to arbitration. Have asked Sitush and Qwyrxian to intervene. Let them give their inputs. Then lets see what can be done next.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

As I am busy, I don't have much time. But I will take some time this week & add refs. What you are doing is breaking wiki neutrality & writing undweight articles.Rajkris (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don;t make excuses. You have been active on wiki since the time (last week) when you said you are busy. In any case, busy does not give you the right to delete just like that. You cannot delete content which I had thoroughly researched, referenced, arranged into proper sections. I went thru each citation of yours before using them in both the articles, Vellalars and Velirs. The only thing I have removed from Vellalars and Velirs are your fanciful interpretations. You are the one violating wiki codes. I will wait for Sitush or Qwyrxian; and take this to arbitration next. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

My refs are correct. You do not have right to remove without discussion. Take it to arbritation, no pb.Rajkris (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Why you did not reply on Velirs talk page then? You did not reply on my talk page on Kshatriya issue either. I think you did not read right. I said I went thru each of your citations before using them. I did not say your citations are wrong. I said your interpretations are incorrect. That you are misquoting or partially quoting stuff to support your own fanciful claims. Alright. Waiting for Sitush or Qwyrxian. Then will go to arbitration. Sitush and Qwyrxian, so arbitration? Sitush, mind if I involved you in the arbitration?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Velirs‎. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bgwhite (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Per Sitush's request at User talk:Sitush#Block of Rajkris, you have been unblocked early. Bgwhite (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Velirs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• if we go back to Sangam period, we have large number of Velir clans who were the large landowners. [Ramesh questioned the equation of Vellalas with Velirs, and Champakalakshmi affirmed their relation.
• of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University. ISBN 978-0-674-01227-1. p. 399.></ref><ref name=''Scripts of the Tamil Country''>{{cite web |format=pdf |url=http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Velirs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did on Talk:Aryan [41] you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on issue, not on other people. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aryan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1-, Volume 2, by John T. Koch, page 961 "The Indo Iranian (formely called Aryan) languages..." [[http://books.google.fr/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA961&dq=indo+iranian+formerly+aryan&
• Grant]], and those of [[Hitler]] Mein Kampf, tr. in The Times, 25 July 1933, p.&nbsp;15/6-->) all culminated in [[Racial policy of Nazi Germany|Nazi Germany's race policies]] and the "[[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for edits in vellala wiki page

Hi I need to add this content on vellala wiki page regarding varna:

page 110 and 111 , Ancient to Medieval South Indian Society in Transition ,Noboru Karashima. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ancient-to-medieval-south-indian-society-in-transition-9780198063124?cc=us&lang=en&

he says "The Second Point I wish to add here for future discussion concerns the caste system based on hierarchy .These Thirty or Fourty years Scholars have been discussing the issue of caste hierarchy,Concentrating their arguments on the question of which of the two,Brahmanas or the King(Kshatriya),occupied the pinnacle of the hierarchy , or which of the two, religion or politics ,played crucial role in maintaining social order in traditional India,by quoting A.M . Hocart and/or Louis Dumont , it seems to be more important ,however , To realize the independence of the two, Brahmana and King, or Religious and the Political , if we consider empirically the function of the so-called caste hierarchy.In the Long course of Indian History , the opposition between the allies of Brahmana and King(Kshtriyas or dominant caste) as rulers on the one hand,and the others groups(classified theoretically as Vaishya or sudra ) as the ruled on the other,has had much significance in society ,Though no communities properly called Kshatriyas have existed in south India, we are able to regard the Vellalas , Who were the dominant caste , as having played the role of Kshatriya in ancient and medieval Tamil Country, A good example of Brahmana/Vellala coordination can be seen in the Thirukkachchur incription, quoted above , contrasting the (good) behaviour of Brahmana and Vellala with the (lowly) behaviour of the lower jatis and missing the former . The best example of the conforntation between the Brahmanas/Vellalas allies and other communities organized as idankai and valankai may be found in the revolt inscriptions of the fifteenth century referred to above"

Request to wiki editor to add this info into wiki page of vellala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.222.186.175 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)