User talk:Keralone

Rollback

I think you should apply for Rollback rights here, so that you can revert vandalism easily. Axxn (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to suggesting that you apply for rollback, there's an easier way to revert edits like the ones here and here. Simply click on the timestamp for the last good revision, edit the page from there and save without making any changes. This instantly reverts all edits from that revision onwards. It's much easier than manually undoing every single edit. —LedgendGamer 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Ezhava

I told you earlier. Either get the article semi protected or get the vandal (117.254.xxx.xxx) banned. Axxn (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:Nambudiri1234567890 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava

Please discuss the contested source, which Truether believes to be unreliable, on the Ezhava article talk page. Do not revert again until you have done so and if/when the content is changed please ensure that you do not capitalise the section headings. WP:MOSHEAD explains the rules for capitalisation of those headings & I am getting fed up of you ignoring them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. Not because I have any opinion on the subject matter in dispute but because you appear to have ignored the above message and again screwed up the headings in the process. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the "related" groups in the infobox into alphabetical order. This is neutral, involving no POV, original research etc. I suggest that you adopt the same approach through the rest of the article, if it could apply. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Ezhava. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ezhava, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed cited content and added back the unsourced content which you were previously warned for. Please take this issue to the article talk page for discussion, or leave the article alone entirely. If you should remove content/reinstate the uncited content once more then I think it likely you will be blocked from editing. There are better ways to deal with these matters. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to discuss your changes on the article talk page, not in an edit summary. Please do so. And please note that an article from a blog is not a reliable source for this material. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurvedic Vaidyars

Please do not attempt to distort historical information.There is no evidence of Ezhava members skilled in the practice of ayurvedic medicine before the end of medieval period Kerala. Members of Ezhava community could make access to various professional careers by 18th century or later.Most of the Ezhava were illiterate till then. If you disagree, please prove it with reliable sources.

Primary education with letters were acquired by Nairs and other similar caste members , for the purpose of land title preparation , tax collection and local supervision there by to take up the role as land chief . This was imparted at village schools, where most of the avarna (ezhava)and out cates could not attend till 17th century. After 17th century primary education with malayalam and sanskrit was filtered to many avarna castes including Ezhavas. However the eligibility for higher education was vested with Brahmins and other higher castes . The British rule had changed the eduacation system and enabled many aspirants to achieve higher education ,which included Ezhavas as well.

Truether (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits at Ezhava

Greetings, are you seeing the Edit Summaries I'm making? Your careless reverts aren't just restoring the paragraph you support, they're undoing my copyediting, removal of a completely mis-footnoted claim, citation fix, etc. If you want the Ayervedic paragraph to be in there, please go back to a previous draft and copy-paste it into the current draft. If you revert again it will violate WP:3RR, as my initial changes were not a revert, but a cleanup. Thanks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence

let us write articles based on anthropology.If you can come up with any sort of archaelogical evidence, then its fine with me.You cant relate 2 castes based on their occupations.There were also tappers in africa etc.We cant be related to everyone whose occupation is relevant to toddy tapping.The Ezhavas were matrilineal,whereas the Nadars were patrilineal.The ezhavas are more related to the Nairs than the Tamil nadars.And you cant relate the two castes based on a title like 'Channar'.The title mudaliar was used by some ezhavas. It was used also by castes like sengunthar, Thondaimandala vellalar etc. According to a theory it was also used by some brahmins in the past.No offense.I dont completely disagree with you.The Nadars and the ezhavas were from time immemorial kalari martial artists. But we just cant relate 2 castes based on such a petty evidence.This is wikipedia.The Ezhava article looks much better now. I wish you the very best..Mayan302 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ezhava. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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. Sitush (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you "self revert" you most recent edit to the article as you have breached the limit. Failure to do so may lead to you being blocked from editing. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use a 35 year old book, itself citing older sources, to support a statement that a caste is the largest community in an area. This needs data from a recent census, or something equivalent. I have therefore reverted your edit. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Ezhava. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ezhava. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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. Sitush (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you take heed of the comments on the article talk page. You are adding totally unreliable sources and doing so in a manner that I construe as being pretty poor editing, even allowing for any possibly language issues. It is creating a lot of overhead. If in doubt, as you should be by now given the several reverts, then sort it out on the talk page first. I really, really do not want to see you blocked from editing and the easiest way to avoid it is to deal with issues off from the article. I do appreciate that you may have issues with formatting but you seem not to be learning by example, so perhaps suggest your changes there and, if they are ok, then trust us: someone will straighten it out and add it for you. Honest, we will. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of Ezhavas, please cite a reliable source for your addition. 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. Sitush (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava

Yet again you are accusing people of vandalism where none exists. Please stop doing this - take a read of WP:VANDALISM and stick by what it says. If you persist with this behaviour then you are likely to be blocked from contributing. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava Christians

Hi, I have seen one earlier comment from you that there are some Christians in Trivandrum region who call themselves as Ezhava Christians. I would like to know more about them. Do you have any further information or useful links? - InarZan Verifiable 07:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]