User talk:Callofduty259

Callofduty259, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Callofduty259! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware

Hi, I notice that you are editing in a topic area related to Kammas/Velamas etc. It is an area where we have seen a lot of sockpuppetry and biassed edits over several years and it is important that you do not fall into the bad habits that we have seen so often. For example, selectively searching Google for things that suit what you think is correct is likely to produce biassed results, as is using books written by Andhra-based or caste-based historians from even as late as the 1990s. Please be aware of the information below because this is a very tricky area in which to edit. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sitush Thank you for this notice. My "selective" searches of Google Books is to find reliable sources that corroborate with information. There is no other way that we can find specific quotes to support written work. If you have any objections to what Is written or believe them to be not factual, that is completely fair-game. But I have only wrote what scholarly texts, such as the Journal of Asian Studies and the Government of AP, say. Nothing more and nothing less. In regards to Andhra historians, if you can please provide me with a scholarly source and not original research on why their work is considered unsuitable, then I will happily avoid them; at present, I am not reliant on their sources and have avoided as much as possible per your request unless they are published by university faculties.Callofduty259 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if this is about the Vasireddy Venkatadri article, I sincerely request you to use the talk page to discuss specific sourcing issues instead of deleting the entire work. Wikipedia articles have to present the facts, no matter how bad or good they are. I have added sources from non-Andhra based Historians, the Journal of Asian Studies, Telugu University, and the AP Government, as this topic has not been written about by international scholars. The news articles have been used on numerous pages throughout Wikipedia, such as on the similarly oriented Venkatagiri Estates or the Raja of Bobbili, and I have not used them alone to back up the edits, but rather in conjuction with scholarly texts. Much of what I wrote now is backed up by two or more sources, which under Wikipedia rules merits to stay. Thank you.Callofduty259 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wrong. It is entirely possible just to read generally about a subject and incorporate what is found from that reading. In fact, that is what we are supposed to do.

There has long been consensus that we need to be extremely careful even about so-called academic writings originating in AP. The same applies to Orissa/Odisha and probably a couple of other states. Indeed, a substantial amount of Indian history writing is very poor, plagiarised, politicised and too keen to state speculation as fact. I think it is improving a lot but certainly stuff from the 20th century often has to be taken with a pinch of salt. As for government sources, well, they are never good sources for history - are you aware of the NCERT scandal, for example? And news sources are particularly awkward because they tend to slavishly repeat whatever anyone says to them.

I am aware that there is much discomfort on the ground regarding the relative status of Kammas vs Reddys etc but we don't need those ridiculous glorification efforts and power struggles importing into Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush I again thank you and I want to make sure to stress that I hear you. I will avoid as much as possible Andhra historians and their work; for the Vasireddy article, I have backed up the vast majority of what I wrote through non-Andhra sources. For subjects that are less frequently written about by international scholars, we have to consider the workings of Indian historians, such as Miss Romila Thapar, who is rightfully dubbed the Mother of Indian History, and such. Wikipedia has to be the best reflection of the available sources that are backed up by reputable sources and institutions. As I have stated, I also backed up News Source articles, which are frequently used in other similar articles, with scholarly sources. Finally, I agree with you that we do not need to import any caste conflicts into Wikipedia. I have only edited what are facts; for instance there Is only one point of view about the size of Vasireddy's army. Again, thanks for the notice and advise. Rest assured, I will Andhra historians if they are not published by reliable institutions [ie: Osmania University, Telugu University, UofHyd, Andhra University, and etc]. I will also not use sources from pre-1990s unless they can be corroborated by more recent ones. This is what I have done for the Vasireddy Article. The overwhelming number of the work is sourced from non-Andhra based sources that have been used in other articles in Wikipedia. Callofduty259 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Devarakota Estate) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Devarakota Estate.

User:Kudpung while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Reviewed OK

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations Kudpung กุดผึ้ง . Thank you for reviewing the article. It was very helpful. Callofduty259 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasee discuss on the talk page

I have reverted a recent change you have made on Kamma (caste). Please discuss on the talk page what you want to include before making any further changesSharkslayer87 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sharkslayer87. You also undid a previous work that was not mine and that was not challenged made by a certain Mr. Naidu. I will be reverting my answer, but leaving his section since Kautilya3 and others did not raise any issues with it. Thank you. Callofduty259 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is back to the original.Callofduty259 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see similarities in your editing style with those of two previously blocked socks viz., NagarjunaSarma and Timmarasu. They both spawned one after another and after that you have shown up. Your motivation is just to glorify caste and related articles. Pinging @Kautilya3: Sharkslayer87 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha you have nice theories - sorry to disappoint. I was not aware that you could not create articles of your free willing topic. You should be aware that it is against Wikipedia rules to threaten an editor in the middle of a discussion with some wack theories. Your statements comes at a curious time since there is a debate to reach consensus. Kindly check policies before coming on my talk-page to rant. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick look at your talk-page history, I certainly do not need lectures from you on this issue, especially threats in the middle of a debate to reach consensus. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me to where I have threatened you? You cannot make allegations without proofs. And about my talk page, I was topic banned and later on successfully appealed it and came out. That should not be your concern in anyway. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not speaking about your ban-history, which I was not aware of till now, but the fact that previous editors have told you to stop issuing threats and to tone down your language. In regards to threats: Seriously? You are essentially saying to me that because of my edits that I am somehow breaking Wikipedia rules which obviously breaking any rules lead to reprimanding. Kindly do not concern about what I chose to create articles on so long as they meet Wikipedia criteria. I bid you a good day. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That had happened before my ban. Can you please point me to any of my edits in the last one year where my language was impolite Sharkslayer87 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage with someone issuing threats while a debate on trying to reach consensus is occurring to try to dissuade editors. I once again kindly request you to not come on my talkpage to threat because of the article content I have created. It is against Wikipedia policies, especially during a consensus debate. I am not engaging further. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I once again reiterate that I have not issued any threats. I apologize for mentioning these things on your talk page. There is a separate venue for that. I won't comment again on your talk page as you have requested me not to. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should have thought about the implications that issuing a threat would have. It was clear to me what you were insinuating: "Back down or else..." If you want to rant about faux theories, do so on your talk-page. No one will object. Thank you. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]