User talk:Foodie 377

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma) with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nasnema  Chat  09:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reddy

Thank You for showing interest in wikipedia. However, your recent additions to the article Reddy were not in the spirit of wikipedia. Entries in wkipedia are meant to be factual and neutral. Point of view, commentaries, songs of praise etc. are frowned upon. eg:

• "The below long lists are of pioneers and the precious GEMS of Reddy community who have excelled in their respective fields. The leadership and the the entrepreneurial nature of Reddys has helped them to excel in all the fields. They say any community or people can be judged by their achievements. Reddys exhibited unparalleled excellence in their achievements in the various fields as given below."

The "Long list" added had entries of questionable notability.

Hope you keep contributing positively. Staticd (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Reddy, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your edit [1] NOW or else provide a reliable source to support the claims. The material has been tagged for several months and further challenged by removal. You must provide sources before returning it. You are conducting an edit war and may be blocked for your actions otherwise. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit in Kamma (caste) was unjustified. Restrain your self from vandalizing.Kumarrao (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumarrao garu , I removed a line that says 'When kammas come in , other castes go out'. Entries in wkipedia are meant to be factual and neutral. Point of view, commentaries, songs of praise etc. are frowned upon. You please refrain from this kind of postings. also please refrain from vandalising Reddy page in future. because you being a non-Reddy, your most work and edits/vandal acts have been to Reddy page. WP:BURDEN.Foodie_377

Your edit in Kamma (caste) of a cited reference is reverted. If you continue to revert the sourced information, administrator intervention will be sought.Kumarrao (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I stopped editing Reddy in June 2010. I appreciate if you improve the article.Kumarrao (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is compromising the ethics of Wikipedia. In reference to your text "When Kammas come in , other castes go out." It is directly violating Wikipedia norms of neutrality and factual information. I state again - Entries in wikipedia are meant to be factual and neutral. Point of view, commentaries, songs of praise etc. are frowned upon. You please refrain from this kind of postings. Foodie_377

You have reproduced the warning given to you on June 10 regarding your edits in Reddy article. This does not apply to the edit you have been doing in Kamma (caste). I quoted a very old Telugu proverb/saying which was quoted by British authors who wrote manuals about various districts in Madras presidency. This proverb might have been valid in British times, not necessarily now. It is important in historical context because it describes how hard working Kammas were. Kumarrao (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if I reproduced or not. Bottomline is I abided by the rule. On the contrary you seem hellbent on breaking the rules. Rules are rules and are meant to be followed by everyone.Foodie_377

It is in no way condescending to others but reflects the spirit of the social group. There are several provebs in Telugu which may sound derogatory to certain people nowadays but we keep quoting them. One has to accept these proverbs in historical context rather than arguing about their validity which can vary from time to time depending upon prevailing social conditions.Kumarrao (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Foodie 377, Please do not edit Kamma (caste) with unjustified logic. You seem to be more worried about other articles than objectively editing Reddy. Edit the article with sufficient citations and support each and everything you wanted to say. Historians, British or Indian, need to be respected. You can only argue providing a contradictory view with supporting evidences. It is a well known fact that Kamams and Velamas belong to martial lineage, if not Kshatriya. In fact, only these two social groups were known as aayudhopajeevulu to Telugu historians. Please read history books by Chilukuri Veerabhadra Rao. The citations given in the [[]Kamma (caste)] article starting from inscriptions of Kamma Nayaks of Kakatiya period, Vijayanagar period and Golkonda period are sufficient enough to show Kammas were warriors. The army commanders of Kakatiya and Vijayanagar kings were described in several link articles. Kammas are Shudras (nothing to be ashamed of) and do not claim to be kings although Prolaneedu and Kapaneedu ruled the whole Telugu land for 50 years. They left indelible imprint on Andhra history and continue to do so. Users like you need to take an objective view in their own articles.Kumarrao (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Again I am asking to provide a specific page and a specific source and a specific book by a reputed author to back your claim.Otherwise it will be removed. Please do not make me repeat same thing over and over again.Please provide valid citation that Kamma were classified as warriors otherwise it will be removed from classification. Again do not cite sources like "Kammavari Charitra" because it is a book written by a Kamma for Kammas. Again just by some handful of people in a community being warriors does not classify the whole caste as warriors.You cannot simply say "well, the Kammas produced this warrior and that warrior, so they're classified as warrior." You have to find a reputable source of information which states that the Kammas were classified as warriors.Foodie 377 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I provide three references which clearly point out the warrior lineage og Kammas. These are:

• Textures of time: writing history in South India by V. Narayana Rao, David Shulman and S. Subrahmanyam, 2003, Other Press LLC, p. 83; ISBN 1-59051-044-5
• Society, Economy and Polity in Modern Andhra, by A. Satyanarayana, 2007, Kanishka Publishers, p.1.
• Compte-rendu de la troisieme conférence internationale, Xavier S, T. Nayagam and F. Gros, 1973; Institut français d'indologie

Any further edit by you will be constued as vandalism and will be reported to administtration.Kumarrao (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Invalid citations. Your citations are not valid. Please feel free to report to admins. I do not understand my violation. I need to see a book which "classifies" Kammas as warriors. not some book which talks about their martial lineage etc etc. Many Kammas like Reddys and Velamas have martial lineage that does not make ALL kammas and does not in any way classify them as warriors. Again you seem to keep on harping the same point. Foodie 377 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alexf^(talk) 17:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Reddy . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma). 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.

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. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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.

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. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Foodie 377 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I violated the 3 revert rule in 24 hr period and so blocked. But after that I edited the article while providing valid reasons in discussion. Please also see the discussion page, even though other users are becoming personal with me, I have remained very calm and my attitude is to discuss in a meaningful manner and get a consensus. I never had a intention to edit war. I might have come across that way but I intend to have meaningful discussions and contributios on wikipedia. I understand why I was blocked and I will not do it again so i request you to unblock me. thank you Foodie 377 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring, and when it expired you went right back to edit-warring. As such, I find it difficult to believe you did not intend it the second time. The first block was a brief warning - you chose to ignore it. I could conceivably understand reducing this block to a minimum of 72 hours, but we would need to see a far better understanding of WP:BRD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Foodie 377 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read the article WP:BRD and in future I will use that method to get some consensus and discussion going. Hereafter I will not engage in edit war.Please unblock me after 72 hours as you have stated.Thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've shortened your block length to 72 hours, as suggested by Bwilkins and accepted by you. You'll still be blocked for a bit more than a day, but when it expires be sure to attempt discussion if your edits are opposed, rather than reverting continuously. Failure to do so will possibly lead to another indefinite block that won't be overturned. -- Atama頭 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on Bhargarva quote, but there's an easier way to format footnotes

Greetings, the Bhargarva quote for the politics section looks great, but rather than manually type the cite, I suggest you just copy the URL that you're looking at on GoogleBooks, and paste it into http://reftag.appspot.com

For example, here's what it produces with just a 2-second cut and paste: S. C. Bhatt, Gopal K. Bhargava (2006). Land and people of Indian states and union territories: in 36 volumes. Orissa. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 9788178353777. Retrieved 25 June 2011.

Consider using this app in the future, and it should save you a lot of time. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kondaveedu Fort Kondaveedu fort.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kondaveedu Fort Kondaveedu fort.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Prolaya Vema Reddy Prolaya Vema Reddy.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Prolaya Vema Reddy Prolaya Vema Reddy.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did with File:Prolaya Vema Reddy Prolaya Vema Reddy.JPG. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Forward caste

See Talk:Forward_caste. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

True colour

You exposed yout real self by rejecting history. I shall not revert your edit. You may live in your own paradise. Cheers.Kumarrao (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop unnecessary personal remarks. It is silly and unwarranted behavior. You can discuss issues in the specific article's Talk page. Making unnecessary personal remarks in my Talk page is not going to help. Especially when you have a skewed version of "your history". According to you, Musunuri Nayaks are the origin of all things living. Well, whatever floats your boat. It is totally your wish and agenda. But just do not interfere into unrelated articles and try to sneak in Musunuri Nayaks into any potential article out there.It is truly laughable. Your reputation precedes you as a biased editor of telugu castes in wikipedia. Any other discussion please continue in the specific article's Talk page. Foodie 377 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I already provided the source and the link to the website - Reddystrust.org http://reddystrust.org/Uyyalawada%20Narasimha%20Reddy.html. Because this would fall under PD-art category. Can you clarify what else is needed? Foodie 377 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Future Perfect at Sunrise made such a statement, since the source was quite obvious. Unfortunately, I've had to tag it for a different method of deletion, since you've not provided proof that the image is old enough for its copyright to have expired. Could you please provide such proof? It's a good image, and if you can show that it's in the public domain, I'll be happy. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not quite enough: how was the reproduction made? If it's not done slavishly (i.e. reproducing every last little detail, even unintentional mistakes by the painter), it still qualifies for copyright protection; moreover, we need evidence that the painting was made while he was still alive. I'm sorry that it seems that I'm grasping at straws — we simply need to have solid evidence that this image is free for everyone to use. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hi. Thank for your edit. But i will add it in a specific chapter, as you did for Reddy. No need to mention it in the intro. I like your chapter on varna status, it is quite clear eventhough i would not mention aryan/dravidian (old fashionned and above all colonial pov) but instead north/south indian.Rajkris (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to my version of Kayastha by another editor

Foodie, good catch on that Kshatriya claim; my version simply said "varna is disputed" and then covered the whole subject below in its own section. Melotown made a ton of vaguely-explained changes, some good and others apparently not so good, and I haven't yet gotten a chance to see if he sneakily removed any cited material that should have been left in. I have to get to bed, but if you're curious here are the major differences between my version and the changes he made: [2]. I'm not sure, but I think he might have removed some of the Shudra stuff from the varna section in favour of putting in more Brahmin stuff. He's at least using footnotes and whatnot, but I'm a little concerned as to the overall changes he's making. If you get a chance to give a second opinion and help ensure he's not removing good data just because it doesn't fit a "glorious narrative" that'd be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(resuming convo here to keep it all in one place) Foodie, would you mind taking a look at the previous version of the lede I wrote (in the diff linked above) to see if you support it more than the current? The current both asserts Kshatriya vice "complicated" and likewise supports a specific version of the origin legend vice "it's complicated". Not to waffle unduly in the lede, but there seemed to be multiple stories for each, so my original lede focused mainly on location and profession, and then mentioned the variety of legends/varnas involved.

As you and I have disagreed on slightly before, I would submit that the fact that POV pushers keep jamming varna into ledes is at least some indication that varna is an issue of ongoing strong interest amongst the readership, and that while it should not be oversimplified nor censored, at least some mention of varna (even if it's "it's complicated") is worth having, very briefly, in the lede of caste articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I support YOUR earlier version of the lede i.e before Melotown introduced Kshatriya into it. The reason I put in sat-shudra is because my take on it is that one should mention both sides of the story wherever it is presented, be it in the lede or the body. I would revert it back to YOUR version because it is more balanced. And the body of the article covers the Varna issue in detail anyway. I am not that keen on having varna in the lede if and only if varna is already being covered in a separate section in the body of the article due to practical reasons as it sometimes amounts to stirring the hornet's nest. As you see, when a POV pusher sees some mention about varna in the lede, he jumps into edit the lede with various claims and we get into a edit war situation. I have seen this happen. Well if the body of the article does not cover it, then its fair to have a small mention of varna status in the lede as you simply cannot ignore varna entirely. Foodie 377 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ravinder Reddy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ravinder Reddy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Message reg the Kamma caste article

Foodie, you said "Cannot simply remove cited content.if you feel you need to better explain about the Varna then pls create a subsection if u dont want it in lede.Simply removal of varna related content amounts to censor-WP:CENSOR".

Please explain why and how does removal of content amount to WP:CENSOR. And why should your allegations of censorship be applicable and acceptable?

IMO the contention of Matthewvanitas that a consensus on WP:INDIA discussion page has to be reached is inapplicable as well. Because there is no reason why consensus reached by a select group on wiki shd be acceptable to all. Long-drawn discussions on varnas and how they are not applicable to dravidian speakers, etc are not possible on wiki discussion pages.

So you need to explain your stand. Why should your contention that such content must be put up on the kamma article be acceptable? You were blocked quite a few times in edit wars involving the Kamma article. Are you displaying the Reddy versus Kamma rivalry here?

I shall wait for 24 hours for your reply, otherwise i shall go ahead and delete your edit. Alternatively, i shall request for you to be blocked from editing the Kamma caste article permanently, since you have not made any form of contribution to the article and are merely involved in an edit war regarding varna. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Go ahead and request the block and we will see what they will do. You are saying who am I to decide? I ask, who are YOU to decide? This is Wikipedia. We go by a set of rules. And you just removing the varna amounts to WP:CENSOR. Stop your emotional blabbering. The very fact that you are dismissing that "it is not possible to have discussions on wiki pages about varna in dravidian speakers" shows your knowledge of the topic. Who told you varna does not exist in south India? It exists in south India but it has to be interpreted differently and should be taken in the right context. Please see the how Varna has been described in detail in Reddy article. If you think you have to explain how the upper shudra category came about to Kammas for a more fair and balanced view to readers, please write about in Kamma article instead of merely cribbing about the word "upper shudras". Please also connect with Kumarrao, who himself has clarified about Varna of Kammas. I have the conscience and guts to tackle varna topic in Reddy article. Seems like you do not have the substance necessary to tackle Varna in Kamma article and hence you are just emotionally petitioning that the "upper shudra" tag be removed. I am afraid that amounts to WP:CENSOR. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. If you feel that varna content should not be in the lead paragraph, then please create a new subsection. Or upon agreement I will create a new subsection. But removal of varna entirely from the article just because you dont like it is WP:CENSOR. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS.PS You are saying I have not contributed to Kamma article. I was the one who manually reconstructed the infobox when the template broke and none of the editors had the slightest idea on how to fix it. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

The Varna Status in the Reddy article is very well written and portrays the exact situation. I am very sorry i had not read the Varna Status description in the Reddy article before. If i had not read your contribution (and description reg Varna Status) in the Reddy article, i wud have continued to think differently (that you were merely involved in an edit war). But you have done an excellent job with your contribution. So again sorry, i meant no harm. Its a good idea to give a similar description in Kamma, Kapu, Balija, etc articles also. I hope Kumarrao will provide the relevant content for Kamma article while i shall do do so for the Kapu and Balija articles. The Kapu article is an utter mess and i shudder to even think of cleaning it up. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Varna Status

Hi Foodie, I have written a similar section of Varna Status for the Balija article. Do let me know if you wish for any change in it.

Am writing this to you because i have an objection to this sentence in the Reddy article "In Andhra Pradesh, the lower castes conducted the priestly activities and are analogous to the Brahmins.[30]". I checked the link you provided and it does not say that priests analogous to the brahmins were "lower castes".

You may note that native priests analogous to brahmins have been held in high esteem and high social position in old literature, such as Tholkappiyam. The high social position holds true for Telugu brahmins as is evinced from Vijayanagar period literature also. Therefore your claim is very contestable. I therefore suggest it is a better option for you to remove your sentence or edit it out accordingly. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Speedy deletion nomination of Veera Raja Reddy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Veera Raja Reddy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Telugu language

Hi,

WP depends on WP:secondary sources. Those sources are all primary. If something is not likely to be challenged, we might not bother, but when it comes to WP:Fringe ideas like this, we need to verify that the POV is actually notable. Otherwise we get all manner of crackpots pushing all sorts of crazy nonsense. I've tried verifying this is notable, and I cannot find anything. Without an appropriate source, we need to remove stuff like this as unencyclopedic. See WP:WEIGHT (and FRINGE, and 2ary).

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears from your blocks above that you have not learned about edit warring. If you continue this nonsense, I will ask to have you blocked again. If you think there is anything to be salvaged from this garbage, take it to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you should check the talk page before you send me personal messages murmuring sweet nothings. :) Foodie 377 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I came back here to give you a heads-up for next time: Edit warring after you've dropped a line on the talk page can still get you blocked. It's still edit warring. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@kwami: somebody should get you blocked. You are not even an admin and why are you giving fake warnings? You just want to scare people from editing to push you personal point of view and agenda? Nagarjuna198 (talk)

It wasn't fake, and it wasn't a threat, since there's no longer a problem here. But since Foodie has had problems with edit warring before, I thought he might not understand that posting a reason on the talk page and then going back to edit warring still counts as edit warring. I've seen people get blocked for that before, and thought he could use a heads-up for the next time something like this happens. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? "Vandalism"? If he was overzealous in cutting the crap, then restore the tidbits he shouldn't have cut. Don't put all the crap back in the article. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a laughingstock. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

seems some bulls are on rampage. I restored some stuff. anyway this is blatant vandalistic behavior. You and your crony Tavio are in for a long fight. good luck.I cannot be bothered :) Foodie 377 (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Telugu language vandalism

If you have any concerns, Please create new section and participate in discussion. Stupid crap and reasoning is being posted in discussion- Please feel free to join the discussion if you can!..Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Please keep an eye

user Taivo is hounding Telugu Language article like anything. Please keep an eye. Dont let him post crap which he claims "Scientific". I will also keep an eye. Thank you. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Can you participate in discussion? Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Personal attacks

Please strike the last sentence of your most recent comment to Talk:Reddy. I know caste articles can be frustrating, but it is never acceptable to call someone "nothing but a low life loser." Note that personal attacks are expressly forbidden per WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't read the other comment first. In the future, though, the best step is to either remove the comments yourself if they are just generally offensive comments, or, if they are directed at you, ask someone else to remove them (you can ask me directly if you like). Technically you can remove personal attacks against yourself, but some people might accuse you of being involved or biased, so it's safer to let someone else do it. I'm going to warn that user now, though it probably won't do any good since they've likely hopped IP addresses. If you get this kind of attack again, there or anywhere else, let me know; there may be a rangeblock that can be targeted or some other method of stopping the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, on a related note, calling an edit vandalism when it clearly is not (like you did on this edit to Reddy) is form of personal attack. Townblight gave a specific, policy compliant reason for removal. Now, that removal might be wrong, and you were perfectly entitled to revert it. But Townblight was explicitly pointing out that he felt the information was out of scope of the article topic. That's a content decision, not vandalism, which is very strictly defined at WP:VANDAL. Now that another editor has reverted you, it's fine to start a discussion on the talk page, too. Editors will disagree on content. Not everything that is sourced automatically gets to/should stay in the article. Let's discuss the issues on talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Foodie Fool, Yes I am a fat Brahmin, descendent of my forefathers who inseminated your ancestors and created a few fair skinned samples in your Kapu (reddy) population. You are imagining Kshatriya ancestry by looking at those specimens among you. You were all toiling Dravidian farmers, some of whom got a title "Reddy" by serving as feudal chiefs. A few of those title holders lorded over a few districts (hardly 80 years) and later became slaves to Golkonda sultans, colluded with them, grabbed Jagirs and enslaved poor people (all over Telangana). You shamelessly style yourselves as Rajahs. Shame on you!! The backward nature of Telangana is solely because of your loot and plunder (major part going to your Nizam master). Your Kapu brethren in Rayalaseema, who also had Reddy title, served Raya kings like slaves, although they opposed the unifying efforts of Vijayanagar kings. The fragmentation of Telugu land was solely because of your rivarly with Velamas and Raya kings. Another historical crime you guys commited!! In modern times, you donned Gandhi cap and strated looting AP as contractors and ended up as master dacoits of Andhra (YSR, Jagan, Gali etc., are shining examples of your avarice and loot). People who survived with great difficulty in arid climes of Andhra are the filthy rich of AP now, simply because of your plunder of AP that started with Sanjiva Reddy and continuing unabated. This perfidy cannot last long. Beware!!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.236.4 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop crying. You are crying so much on Reddys, I am loving it. You are fit to conduct ceremonies for us and take alms from us as you did all throughout history. Reddy kings protected and respected Brahmans and gave them agraharas and provided all facilities. And about your cheap comment about "insemination" etc, ask your women, they know all about how Reddys can inseminate unlike impotent fat Brahmins.

Fake History

I would like to point out that the article "Reddy" is a bunch of manufactured lies, falsehoods and a mega exercise in self-glorification. Reddy is a sub-group of Kapus, few of whom became village heads carying the title "Reddy". It is not a caste or varna. In fact, the title 'Reddy' is shared by other social groups of A.P., although not in large numbers. The so-called Reddy dynasty was imaginary. Ruling a few districts for 70 or 80 years does not make one Dynastical. Absolutely ridiculous and fraudulent!! The map covering entire caostal Andhra depicted as 'Reddy dynasty' is another great travesty of historical truth. Please take corrective measues right now. Protect the sanctity of Wiki from history manufacturers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.236.4 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to things like the above

Foodie 377, Please don't respond to such users by insulting them. To IP editor, if you have reliable sources to support your claims, raise them civilly on the article talk page. If all you want to do is to make unsourced POV claims, please find another website. Wikipedia merely summarizes what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks at other editors, as you did at Talk: List of Reddys. Calling someone's edits "nonsense" and "absurd" is borderline, but calling another editor a "nutcase" is an undefendable personal attack. If you make such an attack again, you will be blocked from editing. Also, please be aware, if you are not, that all articles related to caste in India and related countries are under discretionary sanctions, which means that tendentious editing and other disruptive behavior can result in topic bans, blocks, or other remedies being issued by any uninvolved admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gunapati Venkata Krishna Reddy

The article Gunapati Venkata Krishna Reddy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker^{talk to me} 06:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reddy, again

I am sure that somewhere in our past dealings it was explained to you that Edgar Thurston is not a great source. In the particular instance where you have just reinstated a comment by him at Reddy, his opinion is also undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2012 (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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reddy dynasty

Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma mentioned Reddies of kondaveedu are vassals. Musunuri Nayaks ruled entire Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until 1368. How come kondaveedu reddies rule independently if Musunuri Nayaks are ruling?Think logically Weckkrum (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Foodie 377. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy

On 7 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Azuredivay (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Removing a copyright violation is a good-faith edit and, as such, categorically cannot be called vandalism. Accusing an editor of vandalism for removing a copyright violation is WP:ASPERSIONS and is against Wikipedia policy. Please remember to assume good faith from the other editors. This material was deleted for a legitimate reason but that doesn't invalidate the source. You are free to go to article talk and discuss an appropriate use of the source that respects copyright. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Orientls (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have duly added the discussion in question to the Article's Talk Page Foodie 377 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit war

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Orientls (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (2025 India–Pakistan conflict) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Foodie 377, further disruption in this contentious topic area can lead to a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Foodie 377 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do understand that edit warring can lead to blocking. But I would like to kindly request that, I only reverted 2 edits. I am not sure why I am being blocked only for reverting 2 edits. Furthermore, I did start a discussion thread in the article's Talk page and attempted to reach Consensus regarding the source Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Please refer to the Talk page of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. So I do not think I deserve a ban. And also I understand that edit warring can lead to blocking. But my appeal is that I only reverted two edits. In the future, I will open a discussion in the Talk page before reverting an edit. I request you to kindly unblock me.

Decline reason:

Given the fact that you have misstated your actions in the unblock request below (and this is only a two-week block), I am declining this unblock request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

---

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

You have reverted four times within less than two hours ([3] [4] [5] [6]) while quoting in capital letters various essays and giving other editors advice about edit warring you should have adhered to yourself. I do believe you when you say you are unsure why you are blocked, but that's an issue by itself looking at the edit summaries alone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok I accept these facts you have shown. Hereafter I have decided that I will not get into edit war, I will participate in Talk page to get consensus instead.

I kindly request you to unblock me. Foodie 377 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

You did not make just 2 reverts but 5 reverts in 24 hours as clear from the report. You have been warned above "further disruption in this contentious topic area can lead to a topic ban". Misrepresenting the chain of events is also disruption. Orientls (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They have also edited there [[7]], is this a violation of the (what seems to be a still active) ban? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Also this reinforces the idea they are an wp:spa as all they have done since the ban is appeal it and break it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, which ban? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahh maybe I misunderstood the ban (as there were a few users banned around the same time, it was "from the page 2025 India–Pakistan conflict", but maybe that did not include the talk page. Still does not alter the fact all they have done since that ban is to appeal it or comment on the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on the article's Talk page. So is that illegal?

My silence means I respect the ban. If the Admin wants to ban me from the Talk page also, I will accept it.

In the future I will continue my quest for the truth. And as I mentioned I will not get into edit war. I will initiate Talk page discussion and attempt consensus.

Truth will eventually be told as always in Wikipedia. I am happy that the article is portraying the truth. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Commenting on the article talk page while blocked from the article is usually encouraged. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Foodie 377 has been blocked, not banned, and the block is from one single page only. Users blocked from a specific page to prevent further edit warring are absolutely welcome to discuss instead of editing the article directly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said I confused them with the others banned at the same time. Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: Foodie 377 is now falsely accusing editors of "rewriting history" and also casting nationalist WP:ASPERSIONS such as "Just because India happened to inflict more damage on the ground and some people do not like it, it does not mean we rewrite history."[8] He posted almost same message once again.[9] His presence is a net-negative here, and like you had warned him right above, it clearly seems that the topic ban is warranted now.[10] Orientls (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Orientls, I think this is an exaggerated description and primarily an attempt to get a perceived-as-annoying discussion participant banned. If you are concerned about Foodie 377's behavior, here is the page to complain about it, not on the article talk page and not towards me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Where did I complain about his behavior on the article's talk page? I am doing it here on the user talk page which is the right place for discussing behavior. Orientls (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Orientls, sorry for the late reply; I hadn't noticed your message. I was referring to [11] and [12], I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Why have the Casualties/ Losses been deleted from main infobox

Another editor has already observed that this edit falls to WP:ASPERSIONS. I see that you are CT aware for this topic area and should be aware that a high standard of editor conduct is expected. The proposed edit to remove casualties from the infobox was made at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Casualties/losses in infobox. The proposal is P&G based. It received support and no dissent, and was only acted upon after a reasonable time for comment. I do not think that the comments you make can reasonably be substantiated. I would suggest that you strike the parts of your post that would appear to be inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

More broadly, your behavior in that discussion is falling afoul of WP:BLUDGEON--you're currently responsible for about 50% of the comments in a discussion with 7 other participants, and you're mostly just repeating yourself. Repeatedly pinging Gotitbro the way that you did seems particularly bad form. Take a step back and let the discussion breathe. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring and frivolous accusations of vandalism, as well as misrepresentation of consensus on the talk page, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from India, broadly construed, without a fixed duration (indefinitely).

You have been sanctioned for persistently edit warring in this area since 2011.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

How to continue

Hello Foodie 377,

You may now wonder how to continue editing Wikipedia. Or where.

Fortunately, Wikipedia offers a community portal and a Task Center full of ideas unrelated to India. You are not just allowed but encouraged to edit productively in other areas without edit warring or bludgeoning discussions, and I'm open to removing the topic ban if that turns out to be productive.

If you are currently not interested in editing Wikipedia about topics unrelated to India, then the English Wikipedia is currently not for you, but you can return to editing whenever this changes, and there are many other Wikipedias and other projects the ban does not apply to. Editing any of them productively is also a good argument for removing the ban.

Take your time; this is not a dead end.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree

I do not understand what my offense was? I added a WP:RS. And this was reverted by a User Sherriffintown. In addition Sherriffintown keeps on reverting and rampaging throughout the article.

Well forget about him, ok let us talk about my ban. So I just added a line backed with a WP:RS source. And regarding your comments about me being banned for short time in 2011, that topic is related to a community in India but it is not a contentious topic or a war topic.

Coming to this specific instance, I would like to know why I was banned. I did not even edit war. I simply restored my line and I gave a lengthy explanation of why I was restoring what I wrote.

To me it seems like I was just contributing to the article.

Also please note that this is the first time that I am editing a CONTENTIOUS article, so there maybe some gap there.

Am I expected to gain consensus to even add a single line backed by WP:RS?

I feel very unfairly done and disheartened because of this ban.

I request you to tell me what I should do to not get banned because I am clueless why I was banned yesterday.

Regards,

Foodie 377 Foodie 377 (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree

I sincerely wish to appeal my ban because I feel it is unfairly sanctioned to me.

If you carefully observe, please note that the two edits that I made were not refuted by anyone for almost 3 days until user Sherrifintown just started his usual daily rampage of unilateral editing.

Therefore your assumption of me edit-warring is not accurate. I simply added a line and Sherrifintown just deleted it without justification.

And as you see in the edit summary, I have clearly articulated the reason why I am restoring what I wrote. I simply did not just revert. I showed a willingness to engage in dialogue.

So in actuality it is User Sheriffintown who did the edit war.

I am mentally deeply affected by this ban and disillusioned. Because like all WP editors, we are driven by our passion to learn and our passion for the truth and facts.

Well anyway, in life we are given some opportunities to help. WP for me was that outlet. We all like to contribute to WP to contribute something free to the world. Because the happiness that we get from doing something for free can never match paid employment.

Based on what I understand, just because I added a line, I got banned. I just cannot understand that. And then there is another topic in the same article about a Swiss newspaper. After pursuing it for a while, I showed restraint.

I dont know what else to do. Should I just roll over to whatever the pro-Pakistani editors say?

Also you will be kind to note that I initiated quite a few Topics in Talk including why the infobox was removed. My ultimate aim is to see this article in full glory. I never ever disputed any facts like Indian aircraft being downed. At the same time, we have to acknoeledge and emphasize India's positives in the conflict. It is a pattern that all neutral editors seem to stick up for Pro-Pakistan edits because I am not sure but I guess because they feel India was the aggressor here. But India was the victim for such a long time. Well this is a discussion for another day.

I hope you understand the sentiment that I come from.

My humble request is please see me from an unbiased angle. I am just someone who likes to present the facts. There might be disagreements in Talk page, but people have become so touchy that they are running to complain to Admins like you for every small thing.

Well, I hope you understand my sentiments and hope you unban me. If you want me to rectify something vis a vis my behaviour, I will oblige.

Sincerely

Foodie 377 Foodie 377 (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You weren't banned for adding a line. You were banned for edit warring to keep that line. You put it in, another editor reverted it. Per WP:BRD, the thing to do is open a talk page discussion. Instead, you reverted, were reverted again. Then I reverted you, solidifying that the removal had a reasonable basis, and you reverted a third time. Per WP:ONUS, the editor introducing disputed material must gain consensus. You may note that per WP:VNOT, something being sourced doesn't mean it must be included. Finally, I'll also say that charactarizing SheriffIsInTown and me as pro-Pakistani editors seems like a personal attack. I won't belabor the point, but please remember to comment on content, not editors. Similarly, please read WP:NOTVAND, as you've falsely labeled some edits as vandalism. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

!!!!!Honestly, until now I had no idea that even "restoring content" is considered the same as edit warring. I only thought edit warring means EXPLICITLY REVERTING. I honestly did not know this.

I am not referring to you or Sherriff. I am referring to in general. This article has Pro-India and Pro-Pakistani editors and the neutrals. please do not take this as a personal attack. It is more of a matter of fact statement.

I respect all people who write in WP because they are doing so voluntarily.

You have pointed out issues regarding me. In the spirit of fraternity, I accept them. Will you then also be kind enough to note Sherrif's daily unilateral rampages. Please also look into the Talk page and you can see I have been very proactive and opened three or four talk page discussions myself

So ok, I get it, I will open a Talk page discussion even for a single line when disputed. It is what it is.

But I sincerely feel the ban is very harsh. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Foodie 377, thank you very much for the detailed clarifications. Again, I'm open to removing the topic ban if your edits in other topic areas, or even other Wikimedia projects, are fine. I think you're editing with best intentions but at least the topic India or castes regularly seem to make you upset about the current state of the Wikipedia articles or other editors' opinions. If this is India-specific, nothing is lost by editing elsewhere. And if it was simply a misunderstanding, the easiest way to prove this is to edit constructively and pointing at the helpful contributions made during the ban to get it lifted.

If I may, I'd like to address the line I am mentally deeply affected by this ban and disillusioned. Because like all WP editors, we are driven by our passion to learn and our passion for the truth and facts. specifically: I think it summarizes a lot of potential issues in one line, which is useful.

• This is a volunteer project, an online website, one tiny part of the things you can do in your free time. Wikipedia is not compulsory. If it feels like being compulsory, that can be an issue by itself. If the ban helps you to step a bit away from it, it might be positive in the long term. Wikipedia and the articles you care about will still be here in a year, in ten years, whenever you feel like visiting. The articles you are banned from will still exist when the ban is lifted one day. Nothing is lost. If you feel it is, that might have to change.
• Wikipedia is neither about truth nor facts. Wikipedia is an unreliable summary of what other sources, mostly secondary sources, say. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, not a place to determine what is truth or fact.

Also, you talk about "pro-Pakistan edits" and "pro-Pakistani editors". By treating Wikipedia as a battleground for real-world conflicts between Pakistan and India, and by categorizing editors into pro-Pakistani and pro-India, implicitly saying you're biased in favor of India, you're making a mistake and proving the ban necessary.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFreeThank you for your reply.

WIth all due respect, I believe you are extrapolating here. I mentioned about Pro-Pakistani editors. That does not mean I am grossly biased towards India. what I am is I am only in favour of the truth. you say WP is a tertiary source. But the quality of the sources used here make WP a highly relied upon source and possibly the closest to the truth.

Either which way, you cannot say that "implicitly I am biased in favour of India" as that is not true.

What should matter is not my national affiliation, nor race or religion. What should matter is how I am editing. Yes, I accept I broke the rules by edit warring.

Also I honestly did not know that simply restoring my edits with a detailed explanation also came under the domain of "edit warring".I thought explicitly reverting someone else constituted edit warring. Also I realise the strict need for consensus for every small thing for contentious articles like this one.

you have banned me for life. This is very harsh.

please give me one chance. I understand that if any of my edits are disputed, the onus is on me to take it to Talk as per WP:ONUS. And I shall do that.

Regards

Foodie Foodie 377 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: indefinite does not mean infinite. It just means "until you convince the admins the TBAN is no longer needed." ToBeFree has told you above how you can demonstrate your willingness to abide by the rules: by editing about something not related to India. That's your second chance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

^ this ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can you please unban me?

for the last few days, I have edited several articles which are from different sources. And even though my edit was reverted in Carlos Alcaraz article, I did not counter it.

Actually, I feel I was unfairly banned from India-Pakistan article.

There is a lot of new info coming in every day and no one is updating timely. I wish that I can contribute ofcourse only after achieving WP:CONSENSUS in TALK Page

actually I am again saying last time when I reverted I did not know that even restoring my content was edit warring. Now I understand that the WP:ONUS is on me when I add new material and I shall duly follow that

Please consider my appeal and unban me

you can watch my behavior for 1 day, if I offend, then you can ban me from entire wikpedia Foodie 377 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Almost all of the edits that you have made since your block violate your topic ban. I am talking about these edits:[13][14][15][16][17] and more. Remember, you are not allowed to edit about India until you successfully appeal your topic ban. Orientls (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not an admin. Why are you replying to me? I have no interest in communicating with you. Please refrain from replying to me. Foodie 377 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Th edits I made range a wide variety of topics such as Indian movies, food. And Tennis and Surfing in Portugal Foodie 377 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I posted this above info for the Admin's information as you seem to be actively into misguiding them. Please refrain from accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS. Foodie 377 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that admins are very unlikely to respond to an unblock request that is so far outside of the guidance given at WP:UNBLOCK, right? I would suggest, if you're serious about being unblocked, reviewing how your edits violated your topic ban and then filing an in-process unblock request detailing that understanding and committing to adhere to the restrictions of your topic ban using the demonstrated understanding of your topic ban violations for context. Because, otherwise, all you'll get is page watchers telling you why you're unlikely to be unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I highly suggest you read WP:TOPICBAN and WP:BROADLY. Orientis is correct. The topic ban applies to edits anywhere on Wikipedia, not just to the article itself. It also applies to anything that can be remotely connected to India, such as Indian food, Indian movies, Indian politicians, Hinduism, trade agreements that involve India, etc. Also note that even if the ban did apply only to the article page, asking another to edit on your behalf is WP:PROXYING, which is also forbidden. I suggest you self revert (or if the comments have been replied to, strike through with the strikethrough tags like so: <s>your comment</s>) as a demonstration of your good faith. If you don't, you will likely receive a block. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I have did a strikethrough as my intentions are in good faith. I got banned because I did not know even restoring my own content is edit warring. Ok, I shall completely avoid any articles related to India Foodie 377 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)