User talk:LovSLif

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LovSLif. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions alert and notes

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

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

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

Template:Z33  Administrator note The dispute at Pallava dynasty does have a core of a content issue — which theories of Pallava origins should be included and if/how to distinguish between "mythological" claims and historically plausible ones — that is worth discussing (see next para). But, I'm afraid, that the content issue is being buried under the voluminous, poorly-formatted posts by Destroyer27 and you that often seem focused more on putting each other down than on collaborative editing based on sources and wikipedia content policies. The sniping has also spread to several other venues. This has become disruptive, is likely keeping other editors from participating in the discussion, and needs to stop.

The content issue needs to be discussed on the article talk-page with other interested editors but I'll provide some pointers to hopefully help redirect the discussion into more productive avenues. First, don't try to analyze primary sources and solve the problem of inclusion and weight de novo. Instead, look at how recent respected secondary sources handle the issue: for example, here is how Kulke and Rothermund (1986) discuss the origins. You can look at comparable general Indian history texts. Or, even better, find recent books and review articles dedicated to Pallava history that have been written and reviewed by scholars. Unfortunately, on a quick search I didn't find any obvious works to recommend in the latter category (the older ones like Jouveau-Dubreuil (1917) and Gopalan (1928) are far from ideal) but you and other editors may be able to dig some up with deeper effort.

(TL;DR)  Try to limit the number, length and discursiveness of your posting on the topic and format the text, links and references properly. Focus on WP:HISTRS-compliant sources and content. And stop the personalization and the incivility. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Also, recent participation in the discussion by RViN341 (talk · contribs) and Sourcecharita (talk · contribs) looks like sock-, or more likely, meat-puppetry perhaps prompted by off-wiki discussions. Right now I am not delving into this any deeper but, if it continues, it is likely to attract further investigation and sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, You may please go through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks . The comments made by each other is mentioned. The severity of the comments made by the user clearly violate civil. Will try to utilize the moderation of user Kautilya to resolve the same or in extreme case to DRN. Thanks. Regarding the other users Rvin341 or Sourcecharita , I am totally isloated from them and I have no connection/sock. You may request for investigation of their identity if you feel sock or violation. I adhere by Wiki policies and respect the same. Thanks for ceasing the discussion which is going in a wrong way. Will try to focus only on the content. By LovSLif (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR

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

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

Please try to be productive!

I am afraid you are not achieving much by your frantic posts. You have made over a dozen posts at Talk:Pallava dynasty within a span of a few hours, but almost none of which is doing what I have asked for, even though you yourself asked me to moderate. You need to make only one post a day, but do it productively, which makes progress towards agreement. When I asked for "sources", you need to provide WP:Full citations, not just URL's as you have done here. Without Full citations, it is not possible to determine whether they are WP:HISTRS or not.

Also, you need to control yourself from making off-topic comments and engaging in pointless disputes. Anything off-topic merely detracts from the issues at hand and delays reaching CONSENSUS (if not even making it impossible). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,

What I have provided are what I have and that is what I can explain. I feel that is suffice. I cannot waste my time over here further. I feel the entire platform is totally biased and when sources clearly speak on 'what is what' I still do not understand the credibility of such discussion. POV content has clearly overridden the article and many other articles by the user. If you or any admin could not trace them then no point in withstanding and wasting my time. I believe wikipedia articles have lost it's integrity and neutral content. I will add the sources one last time tomorrow. By LovSLif (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd be wise to listen to Kautilya3. There is no "hurry" to edit Wikipedia and it is more important to get sources right than to resolve issues quickly (and perhaps badly). It helps to be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Give me some more time. I will provide full sources by today and in much better way by clear segregation of the things. I will not club each other. I will keep it short and striking with apparent facts sourced directly from the books.I will follow complete transparent approach. Thanks for understanding. By LovSLif (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Please note that I am not an admin. I am a volunteer editor just like you are. Abecedare has asked me if I can help resolve the disputes on that page, which I am trying to do. My goal as a mediator is not to decide who is right and who is wrong, but to get the contending parties to come to a point where they can agree with each other. I will be giving equal consideration to both of you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This post of yours is too long-winded and disorganised to be useful. I am going to remove it and copy it to your sandbox. Please edit it so it is no more than 10 lines long. Remove any out of date sources (published before 1950) or sources already rejected as unreliable. Add proper citations to any sourced statements.

If you want to be able to get your points of across on Wikipedia and look like a good Wikipedian, you need to learn how to write clear and succinct posts. You have already been warned by Abecedare about writing voluminous, poorly-formatted posts. Continued behaviour of this kind without any improvement will be regarded as obstinacy and you are likely to be blocked. In this talk page section, both Abecedare and I gave some tips to Destroyer27 about how to use proper formatting. Please review all those suggestions, because they equally apply to you.

If you want to be able to contribute and improve the Pallava dynasty, you really need to learn this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I do not want to entertain any user further. I have already organized well enough earlier and I cannot drum it repetitively.Sources are pretty clear enough. I ask Abecedare doesn't the same productivity applicable to other users on the discussion? You may look at the sources and the statements made by the other users as well on how reliable enough are their statements and sources.

@Kautilya3, On what basis the etymology section is holding on article? Did you get chance to verify the sources and content? I belive POV content pushed in self written style is productive enough for wikipedia? I belive it was you who provided 3 sources and when I provided statements from the same what is now confusing on the same? My counterpart is purely stating on personal assumptions. For instance in his statement says 'Why pallavas did not publish in Telugu if they are from Andhra region'. One should understand when Telugu script evolved and it was Prakrit used by the region and monarchs. Do such statements look productive to you? Seems wikipedia is entertaining those who got poor knowledge. Can you also look at the length of my counterpart statements? Does they hold short enough?.I do not bother about getting blocked and that is what I can expect when wikipedia loses transparency.I live in Singapore and I am a civil services aspirant for Indian services.I refer many a books for history and I just raised my voice against the wrong content over wikipedia and as a consequence I had to end up losing big time despite citing the content from sources rather I would love to quit the moment I feel wikipedia has lost its credibility of being transparent. Liz asked to verify the valid sources but seems that ended up unroductive and I still do not know the reason. Thanks for your time. By LovSLif (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

LovSLif, please rest assured that if other editors engage in long-winded, disorganised posts, I will caution them in the same way.

The Telugu issue was also answered by me when I stated that "Andhra" does not mean "Telugu". We do not need to address every point made by everybody, just those that are necessary to reach consensus on the issue we are concerned about.

Regarding the Etymology section, I am not going to get into that issue until we settle the Origins section. I do not have an infinite amount of time to devote to this. If you are able to learn to debate the issues better, you would be able to settle the issues yourself without help from other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,I possibly may not agree with your last line.Learning to debate is feasible when both agree to get the facts into mind.At the same time it is not possible when other user is evident of the facts but unable to digest the same.Even your moderation would not help here.This is a basic psycic law.

I don't think so equal treatment is given on the talk page. Any user or you if can notice latest statements on talk page then this is clear.My counterpart agrees on same source which he disagrees earlier.Just messing up the things to show something out of nothing.You may look at the shape of talk page now and decide if equal treatment being rendered. Regarding "Andhra" and "Telugu" words,yes! both are not synonymous and I was only showcasing their orgin from Andhra region.Telugu hasn't actually fully evolved by then. By LovSLif (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

LovSLif, I took a look at your post on Talk:Pallava dynasty that Kautilya3 moved to your sandbox and I too found it difficult to parse given its poor formatting. Please spend a bit of time learning how to format wikitext; use proper punctuation so that it is clear when you are quoting a source, summarizing a source, or making a general statement; be clear on which exact source (and page number) you are referring to; and, to prevent endless discussion, once a source is found to be unreliable, either dispute that at WP:RSN or stop referring to it "irrespective of this book reliability." Finally, allow discussion on one topic (Sources for Pallava's origin currently) to be settled before starting discussion about another topic.

All this will make your arguments more clear and effective, save you time, and be respectful of the time others are volunteering. Abecedare (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare Alright! Hope this is also applicable to other users on talk page.I noticed user has today opened 2 new sections on talk page just to post his comment on ongoing discussion.When the thread is already in place,how relevant is it to post one's comments in a new section?.Request you to check. By LovSLif (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I am afraid you have made frantic disorganised posts today [1]. You are not getting anywhere.

All the views in my draft are attributed. You cannot "contradict" them by stating the views of other scholars. All scholarly views are represented, and we are not going to remove any of them because somebody or other disagrees. You need to quit making such arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I need to collapse some of these comments especially those dealing with Thirunavukkarasu, because the talk page is becoming unreadable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Let the moderators on WP:DRN page decide which sources are attributed and which holds good.

I believe you have moderated and presented your views.To accept or to contradict is up to the users on the discussion.If not happy over your draft, then let me move to DRN team.Let them decide the content to be added. I am afraid that moderation is not going transparent enough by looking at your statements including the one on collapsing Thirunavukkarasu dealings. He is a notable scholor and his books are much revered.Request you not to collapse the same. Thanks for your time and I will no more comment on talk page. By LovSLif (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Discussion on sources

Thirunavukkarasu is not a historian. Nothing he says can override what the historians have concluded after decades of research. Moreover, you have not even told us what Thirunavukkarasu says.

You always have the option of going to WP:DRN. But at this stage, since an NPOV draft is available, I don't think you will achieve anything by going to DRN. I suggest you take advice from Abecedare. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,You had stated to produce modern sources.You ruled out old sources cited by me.At the same time,pointing to the old sources cited by you, you were stating Nothing scholar says can override what the historians have concluded after decades of research.These statements are contradicting with each other.

Please understand that History is ever progressive and dynamic subject and its content is not static. The moment new research/discoveries materialize old theories/research always do not hold strong.

You have preferred another user's edited publication which presents selective statements of DC Sircar to original book of DC Sircar which I asked you to refer.No clarity on the same.I request Abecedare to consider these points in a transparent way.
Term 'Kanchi origin' is nothing but a self conclusive term and it has nothing to do with the content/nor used anywhere.They did not put forth 'from kanchi' thesis.
Also,using 'Tondaimandalam' synonymous to Kanchi is a clear misguided information.You may refer scholarly book/maps on Tondaimandalaml These sort of terms do not look like 'NPOV' to me.That is why I feel to approach DRN.
I could have progressed to certain agreement of your draft with minor modifications if the term 'Kanchi origin' was not included in your draft.
NPOV draft is a first draft and it was posted by you for suggestions/updates.Hope it is not final draft.But unfortunately I do not sense my statements/sources are being considered at all.As stated above,I have uncertainty on the way the discussion and moderation is progressing. By LovSLif (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Kanchi origin" (my term) is in line with "Pallavas of Kanchi" (Sircar's term). Do you have an alternative?

"Origin in Tondaimandalam" might make you happier. But we have no information that a region called "Tondaimandalam" existed before Pallavas. It seems that the region was named after them (via their Tamil name Tondaiyar or Tondaiman).

I can weaken it to something like "origin in the vicinity of Kanchi". That is the best we can do. But this is not in line with Sircar, who does use terms like "Pallavas whom we find stationed at Kanchi at about the end of the third century" (The Early Pallavas, p.10). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,"Stationed at kanchi" does not mean they have originated from kanchi. Gabriel propounded the same.Prior to their seizure of kanchi by the end of third century,their forefathers reigned in andhra region and made land grants.

Also, how well does it hold to rely on single sentence. What are your inputs on below statement from the same source.

SCHOLARS are now generally of opinion that the Pallavas were not indigenous to the K&fici region. Thus Prof. S. K. Aiyanger says, "The Pallavas seem nevertheless to have been foreign to the locality as far as our evidence takes us at present" (op. vit., p. x). The question is now : When did the Pallavas attain political supremacy in the K&ftci region"

Also, I am not supporting 'Origin in Tondaimandalam'. just based on'Some author thinks pallavas to be natives of Tondaimandalam'.I am ok to retain the line but proposing/terming the uncertain thesis as 'origin' from kanchi/tondaimandalam does not look ok. We have many such unclear probabilities by various historians stating various origins of pallavas. By LovSLif (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In the passage you displayed, Sircar is describing Aiyangar's views, which I had summarised in another paragraph.

The draft is summarising three articles in History of India volumes. Unless you have read those articles, you have no basis to comment on whether they are accurate summaries or not. So, please read the articles first.

Finally, if you have an alternative description to replace "Kanchi origin", please state it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have been through the book of Sircar and as I said above, Sircar no where propounded origin from kanchi.He was clear enough on pallavas extension to kanchi.It could be better if you could point to the paragraph or page numbers where he proponated 'Kanchi origin.

Those lines you quoted sofar are no where supporting such origin.'settling or extending' is not synonymous to origination.
Request you not to propogate self conclusive terms like 'Kanchi origin'.

I have cited book of Heras which translates velurupalayam grants stating conquest of kanchi.

You have rejected stating book is old.This book is as old as that of Sircar and younger to Gabriel book.Also,the translation of epigraphical plates will not alter with time.

I think the moderation is not progressing in a transparent way,So no point of prolonging the same.Let us park our comments.
As Abecedare said below,I will wait until he reviews and then decide on proceeding to DRN.
By LovSLif (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If you had read through the book of Sircar then why are you quoting the passage where he summarised Aiyangar's views. Why aren't you quoting Sircar's own views? Where did he say 'settling or extending'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 My previous statement quoted was ascertained by Sircar at the end of the page as follows. "It is almost certain that the Pallavas originally were executive officers under the Satav&hana kings 1".

I am not able to find 'Kanchi origin' clearly propounded by Sircar. Would you mind if I ask you to share which chapter of the book you were referring for the 'Sircar's own views'?you may even help with some passage/line to search in the book. By LovSLif (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Being officers of Satavahanas says nothing about their location. But you seem to claim that it does!

For Kanchi origin, please see the second quotation in my post on 28 June. I haven't looked through the book for similar material, but it doesn't matter. His later article certainly overrides whatever he might have said in the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,Are you referring to the below quotation?

The Pallavas may have been originally provincial rulers under the Later Satavahanas and risen to power in the Kanchi region at the expense of the Nagas. (Sircar 1970, p. 271)

Again,Here you were referring to the majumdar's book and his explanation on the views of Sircar.Not the original book of Sircar. Uses 'May have' which is not conclusive to say one propounded an origin as per your draft.
Been through the book. Here are my observations.

• The Early pallavas" book by Sircar, not only speaks about the origin rather speaks about various rulers in the line right from their origin till 8th Century.
• Have been through the original book, where Sircar views various origins of pallavas and to illustrate he utilizes the view of many scholars(including gabriel).
• The book is very old and we are considering it. I still did not get the reason on why moderator rejected book by 'Heras' which is from the same period. Also why are we not considering the latest sources?.Abecedare please look into this.This is the one I am seeking proper reason.
• Sircar no where viewed other thesis as conclusive. He even uses the terms like "Not impossible".

Few example views:
1.

According to the evidence of the Mayidavolu grant, dated in the reign of

Sivaskandavarman's father, the Andhrapatha (i. e. the Andhra country) with its headquarters at Dhamfiakada (Dh&nyakataka) passed from the Iksvakus to the possession of the Pallavas. Pallava Sivaskandavarman, who was like CamtamQla I a performer of the great Vajapeya and Aivamedha sacrifices, was preceded in the suzerainty of the Andhrapatha at least hy his father who must have ruled the country after Ehuvula

Camtamula II. Sivaskandavarman therefore can hardly be placed earlier than A. D. 300.

2.

We have seen above that the Nagas were ruler: of ths Kafici region before the rise of the Pallavas int that locality; it is therefore not impossible that VirakQrca married the heiress

- rise of pallavas in the locality post marrying is not same as the origin of pallava dynasty.Hope we are speaking about the origin of dynasty.

Also as per your draft, neither this thesis/view places nagas exactly at kanchi nor as their capital.aruvanadu between pennar and palar covers both south andhra and north tamilnadu.Malanga capital(which is a region much north to kanchi)

3.

But, how did the Pallavas occupy the Kanci region which was once under the Nagas 1 This question is difficult to answer, as we know nothing definitely about

-'occupy kanchi' to be noted here.

Finally, I request you Kautilya3, to confine our discussions to the topic even if you are poor at or good in the subject. I am referring to the following statement by you 'But you seem to claim that it does!' By LovSLif (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• I'll be off-wiki for about the next 24 hours but will take a look at the recent developments soon after that. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok back and have just tipped my toes into the debate but I think that it could well be amenable to resolution by some word-smithing.
  • LovSLif: would your concerns about accurate representation of Sircar's hypothesis (we are not talking about the "correctness" of that hypothesis here) be allayed if in Kautila's first draft, we changed ...they originated in Kanchi and expanded north to ...they initially rose to power in Kanchi and expanded north...? The exact wording can be debated later, with "came to prominence", "gained some power" etc being possible alternatives; 'Kanchi' be changed to 'around Kanchi', if needed. The third para can be similarly tweaked, for example the Kanchi origin theory changed to the Kanchi theory.
  • @Kautilya3: Would you have any objections to such a change, or alternate suggestions along these lines ? (I believe you have made some similar suggestions already).

Right now I am just asking for in-principle agreement/objection to see if a quick and easy resolution is possible. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:,Thanks for your inputs.I align with your inputs to certain extent.Theory of 'raising to the power' around kanchi was not conclusively made by the author.So assigning the term 'proponents of' to the authors does not look true.

Also,I have highlighted concern over not considering various other sources including the one by 'Heras' and 'Thirunavukkarasu',a notable modern day scholor. kautilya3 can help to prepare second draft.We shall discuss and come to a resolution. By LovSLif (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

Hi LovSLif, if you are going to be creating lots of pages, you need to read and follow MOS:LEAD. Please see how I rewrote the lead for Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu I. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. Thanks. I have been working on a project of sorts for the Pemmasanis, that is why I’m creating new articles. Any inputs you give will help. By LovSLif (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) Fylindfotberserk (talk). Made my day. By LovSLif (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hi LovSLif! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 12:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi regentspark, thank you for this clarification. I also taught it included a sentence addition or two that eases flow. My mistake. By LovSLif (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sentence flow is fine but Some of the notable Kamma Nayak clans of Vijayanagara include the Pemmasanis, Sayapanenis, and Ravellas is adding content to the article. I noticed that almost all your edits are marked minor, that's probably not a good sign. --regentspark (comment) 00:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

regentspark My bad. For almost all edits I make, I do add sourcing, even if I mark them minor. Appreciate you informing me of the precise rules regarding it.

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Kamma

From all the activity on this talk page, it looks to me like you are getting into quite a few problems with your edits. This seems to be another example. I have no opinion regarding Selig Harrison, whom I don't think I have ever read, but to remove a source on the basis that it was spouting "untenable" and "unverifable" points is simply not how we do things. Our policy is verifiability through citation of reliable sources, and you haven't actually explained why Harrison is unreliable, merely stated your opinion that, well, he was talking nonsense. How do you know that? Why is he not reliable? Have subsequent academics criticised his approach? Is he one of those people whom academics do not cite? Etc. You've got to discuss this type of situation because one thing is for sure, our biography for him claims that he was a scholar as well as a a journalist, so his opinion may be valid even if other sources disagree with him - that's WP:NPOV for you. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush (talk) Issue is Harrison is reproducing Kamma POV from Choudary, contradicting Talbot's more recent work also. Explained on talk page why elaboration on Sat Shudra role is better than giving credence to the work of a caste ideologue through Harrison's work. By LovSLif (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush What do you think on it? Choudary's work and its clear caste ideological pushing is a problem. If Harrison is basing his remarks from that, wouldn't that be problematic?

(edit conflict) Hm, not sure. There seems to be a lot of effort being put in by a few people lately to get various Andhra etc castes described as sat shudra even though sources for it are pretty thin on the ground. You can see some recent attempts of mine to find sources at Talk:Kapu (caste)#Shudra. As I said, I haven't read Harrison and it could well be that he was writing as a journalist etc but I worry about removing what appears to be sourced info without getting consensus to do so. In particular, I worry when it happens at caste articles and the info was in some way unflattering to the caste - that is often just down to people wanting to whitewash things that they do not like. You probably need to raise these issues at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush In this case, existing content is too over flattering. No evidence to claim that Kammas were predominating Kakatiya Court or were purely "noble". These claims seem to derive from Choudary's POV. Wrote on talk page for feedback and thoughts. By LovSLif (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some real-life work to do that has a deadline but hopefully others can respond soon and, if not, I will take a closer look as soon as I can. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) LovSLif, that passage that you deleted is describing Choudhry and the "Kamma lore", which needs to be present in the article. I don't know why you would remove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)