User talk:Sourav431

Stop including Amartya Sen as a brahmin. He is a baidya

according to official Nobel website amartya sen is a brahmin.baidya is the community he is from.baidyas are also brahmins.dont revert cited sources.

Sen is a Baidya surname. It is a caste. Brahmin is not just a caste but also a varna. Noble website is not an authentic site to refer about caste system. Stop including him.

educate yourself before write any article.there are 4 varnas in Hinduism 1.brahmin,2.kshatriya,3.baisha,4.sudra.baidyas or Ayurvedic physians comes under brahmin varna.

and nobel official website is not authentic?? are you kidding me??

don't revert another time.or I will ask admins to prevent you from editing.

Kindly refer to this book: Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste ... by Pandit Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya And stop trying hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.141.158 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to talk to you.you need proper knowledge.if you want to revert again then for your kind information i can do this edit war all day long. Please stop causing problem for readers. Kindly go through above book. Your will cannot make him brahmin

he is a brahmin.he is from baidya community of bengal.baidyas are saraswat brahmins for your kind information

June 2021[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sena dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Casteism is disruptive and does not belong here! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding addition of Mr. Amartya Sen in Brahmin page[edit]

Hey Sourav431 I have observed edit war involved in Brahmin page. Please at this moment keep Your emotion aside and search verifiable neutral sources. Pls Understand Nobel prize site is not enough source as fer as Caste concerned. Brahmin samaj have not accepted Vaidya.ThanksAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it is conformed by a seniormost editor hence You are correct. Sorry. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles[edit]

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

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

-- Ekdalian (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Ekdalian. You have been adding or changing content in the article, Bengali Brahmins in spite of warnings and messages from your own Baidya community; you need to provide a reliable source as already mentioned, not the Nobel committee view, obviously based on the individual's declaration. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on the article; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely for being an unrepentant caste warrior and most likely a sock, since you show a grasp of fairly arcane Wikipedia practices from your very first edit. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 17:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

seriously what I did wrong?? I added some content from some authentic sources and you are saying that I am a caste warrior??? what a joke

You persistently remove well-sourced text, as here, where the source is one you in other places refer to yourself. And you edit tendentiously: your editing has a tendency to glorify and puff up the Vaidya/Baidyas. That's what makes a caste warrior. You have edit warred at Bengali Brahmins, persistently adding Amartya Sen without a reliable source, and have several times added the "trija" - thriceborn business without any sourcing at all.[1] But if you feel the block is unjust you are free to appeal against it, by following the instructions above. Your appeal will be reviewed by an uninvolved, neutral admin — not by me, who blocked you. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

MR Bishonen sorry for the edit war, I was new to Wikipedia I didn't understand its terms and conditions. kindly unblock me and give me a last chance to serve Wikipedia.

I repeat myself from above: If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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).

Sourav431 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason As I was net and didn't know the terms and conditions of Wikipedia I involved in an edit war. I should talk with admins before editing any article. I would like to ask you for forgiveness for what I did before.Sourav431 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, talking with admins is not how you resolve edit wars, nor is it an obligation before editing an article. Yamla (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

MR bishonen I am sorry for what I did before. I thought you,ekdalian all doing this together. I am just asking for the last chance from you as i know how WikipediaSourav431 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) works[reply]