User talk:Nikhil Srivastava

Welcome to my talkpage.

Hi Nikhil. Do u want to talk u have messaged me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvel200 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chitragupta into Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Diannaa: As you would have noticed by now, someone has already deleted that. Hope that ends it. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page

Hi,

I hope you might have noticed that the first line written by you has been deleted in that page. Somebody has deleted 'Kayastha Brahmin' word citing that it's pompous. No idea why? Seems like a hater to me. No idea as to why he called it pompous when it's the truth. Dinopce (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: Welcome to my talkpage.
I think you are referring to this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946352562.
It wanst added by me, the user who added it is @Iam shivansh srivastava: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Iam_shivansh_srivastava&action=view
The user who undid it is @Sattvic7: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sattvic7
As far I know him, in my opinion, he is an objective person and demands source for each assertion but once provided with he doesnt undo stuff. He has no malicious intention as far as I can judge. I don't think he would have undone it, if source for such addition was provided by Shivansh. The matter may be resolved between the two and in case, as per the need of the situation, I may chime in my opinion on it, later on the Chitraguptvanshi talk page. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gave him my opinion and added the 2 words back in that page.

If he deletes again,then it can mean some ill intent in his mind.

My reason to include those words back over there has been given in the talk page below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chitraguptavanshi_Kayastha#Kayastha_Brahmin_or_Brahma-Kayastha

Bye Dinopce (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Just saw your changes made in the Kayastha page.

I've a reason for NOT REMOVING THE 'UPPER CASTE' WORD which is going against your recent changes. I read your reason about how some people from Brahmin community are using caste based reservations under OBC category.

My Reason: In India,there are several communities or castes who claim Kshatriya varna status even though they're shudra varna under law. Some of these communities(don't want to name those communities or castes) have written in wikipedia that they're Kshatriya EVEN THOUGH THEY BELONG TO SHUDRA VARNA UNDER LAW.

The word "Upper caste" was an identifier here. We use the word "Upper Caste" synonymously as "General Category" WHICH CLEARLY distinguishes us from the OBC,EBC,SC,ST etc.

Upper caste=General Category(which doesn't comprise Brahmins under OBC category as then they become reserved category UNDER LAW. Under religion,they(Brahmins)will always be BRAHMIN VARNA.

Also,one last thing:

I liked the way how you clubbed these two paragraphs together.

(According to some accounts, they are a literate and educated class of Kshatriyas, and they have been referred to as a twice-born caste.[94][95] The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as a Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kshatriya varna.[96][90])

To be honest,I've been wanting to do THE SAME THING myself. It's nice that you did that. But,it'd have been better if you'd have placed this changed paragraph that I mentioned above in parantheses AS THE 2ND PARAGRAPH IN THE VARNA STATUS SECTION.

Why?

For ease in readability.

If I'm a commoner who wants to gain info about the Kayasth community,then the VARNA STATUS section should immediately tell me about their status.

Why would I scroll down the entire paragraph filled with Bengali Kayasthas and then find the information about the varna status of Kayasthas clubbed with the Bengali Kayasthas and Bhadralok etc.

As a commoner who wants to gain info from wikipedia,I'd like it to be hassle-free.

I hope that I'VE MADE A POINT HERE.

Summing up my msg: Let the 'upper caste' word STAY. Upper caste=General Category;The Brahmins who are using the OBC category CAN'T BE CONSIDERED UPPER CASTE ANYMORE UNDER LAW BUT THEY'LL ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED AS BRAHMIN VARNA UNDER HINDUISM. This is why Kayasthas are under scepticism as to whether they should ask for government based reservations or not,in the first place.

The 2 paragraphs that you clubbed makes sense but they should be MADE 2ND PARA for EASE IN READABILITY.

The above are my suggestions. Please let me know if you're not seeing eye to eye with me on this! Dinopce (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: Dont run behind this "upper caste" tag, it can only do harm and one should be wise and confident enough in his origin to not care for such tags but openly demand reservation, just like those Brahmin communities who have resrvation. Everyone agrees that Kayasthas (be it CK, CKP, BK or minor groups) depend on education and professional jobs. They will continue to go down the ladder if reservation is not provided. Our identity is not our caste status, our identity is our profession and in case of Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha our common ancestor. Even if we get OBC status it wont make a difference for Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas socially as we are an endogamous group and our belief in common ancestor is immune to legal status, but economically and politically we would then be far better off than we are today. The need for us and our future generations is reservation. Take that aim in mind and act accordingly.

If you still are not satisfied, you can go ahead and edit the page, I won't mind. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I'm against any reservations!!! :I'll leave that for the government and ABKM(Akhil Bhartiya Kayasth Mahasabha)to decide! It's not about what you think or what I think! It's about what the government thinks! :)

What I'm concerned about right now is the fact that there are castes like Yadavs,Kurmis,Jatts etc who

openly say that they're Kshatriya BUT they haven't proved anything IN COURT!!!

They're even writing about their Kshatriya part in Wikipedia by citing sources from the books of authors(which can once again be a theory by these authors) without any government authority's word as proof! Where's the proof?!!

UNTIL AND UNLESS,the government makes any decision about the reservation part,the 'Upper Caste' word should be there. The upper caste word was used during the final ruling of Patna and Calcutta High court as far as I've understood from the following:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=num2I4NFGqIC&pg=PA33&dq=shatrughan+sinha+kayastha&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=snippet&q=Kayastha%20upper%20caste&f=false In pg33 above,the sentence "By a court decision in 1927 in Bihar,the Kayasthas came to be recognised as one of the upper castes.23"

23 means that the line was actually used somewhere and the author of the book has used that exact same line in his book. The same line might have been used in OTHER BOOKS TOO WRITTEN BY OTHER AUTHORS.

I hope that my thoughts are clear to you!

I liked that you combined those two paragraphs to form a single meaningful paragraph. I was going to do the same in a few days.:)

However,as a commoner who is NOT A KAYASTH but wants to gain info from Wikipedia, the clubbing of that paragraph with the 3rd Bengali Kayasthas,Bhadralok etc is leading to confusion as it(the decision) is not just about Bengali Kayasthas but about ALL THE

3 SUB-GROUPS OF KAYASTHAS.

So it should have its own identity.It should be placed as the 2nd para(my desired place) of the VARNA STATUS section. The 1st para of the Varna status section which starts with 'The exact varna of a Kayastha subgroup varies and depends on its varna origins.......'. makes sense. So,I don't want to change that at any cost. If somebody else has got problem with that,then they can cite any additional sources

I don't want any edit warring from your side before making any changes over there.

Please let me know your thoughts here itself.

Please keep the Yadav,kurmi etc part IN MIND before writing your final decision here! I don't want people to get confused just like they do about these other castes and ask futile questions on quora and Yahoo answers.Kayasthas have proved their part in court. They haven't! Simply writing the "Kshatriya"part even though it includes the "final court's ruling" part over there won't do good.

Not everyone in this world is a good reader. Some people just believe in scanning the 'Varna status' part of different castes. The answer should be there in front of them without any questions in their mind! Dinopce (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your time in making your decision. I'm in no hurry. :) Dinopce (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: In fact, it's what you and I think that matters. No government or organization is going to take up the cause unless there is a mass demand for it. In the last few years that I have been around I have seen opinions being formed and also have been fortunate to influence some. The message has to be clear and widespread. The motive should be transparent to all. The end is what will justify the means, you and I are a part of the bigger picture. We are the dots that forms the big picture. Anyhow returning to the present case, since you are adamant and are also quoting source with the exact words, you can go ahead and add that term only on the condition that you will also provide reference to the source there. Also my advice is not to show down any caste or group, you should be wise enough in practical world to understand that it's a race to be at the top, everyone tries their best, some pull others down while some use ladders. If you aint at the top your effort is lacking either way. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to show down any caste or group! I just said what's correct. Where have I said anything wrong about other castes that I mentioned the name of? I just gave you the facts and my reasons while using the examples of other castes and how it can lead to confusion. That's it.

People will simply look at the Kshatriya part and might get perplexed.

Wikipedia shouldn't be like Quora. This is why I think what I think. :)

One request from you if you'll consider it. :)

I'll not be able to add the reference to that source. I'm not sure how much should I write as quote over there.

You've been making edits since a very long time here on Wikipedia. I've even given you the source and link which you can use here.

The recent link that I used in Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page was called LONG by one of the old editors Bonadea who reverted my change and then he might have read my discussion in the talk page After that,he's asking me a question over there about the descripter. He could have asked me that before too. Another source that I gave a few days ago was called 'not a reliable source' as it was a British Raj source.

My Question to such people or editors:If they're not considered reliable,then the entire ruling made by British judges of the British Raj era should be revoked and Kayasthas and Bhumihars and Rajputs and other castes who might have been declared Brahmin varna or Kshatriya varna or Vaishya Varna or Shudra Varna should not be considered,what they're considered in modern times.

Different people(editors) with different brains have different opinions.

Please add the link on my behalf. I've provided you the link. If you're using a laptop or computer(not a mobile like me),then it should be easy for you.

Gud n8.

Dinopce (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you won't mind doing that at your own convenience. Gud n8 Dinopce (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I forgot to ask one last thing.

Which Brahmin communities have demanded reservations?

Please give a link for that. I'd like to increase my knowledge about that. Dinopce (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: Go to this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Other_Backward_Classes and scroll down to the section which reads 'Brahmins who are in OBC lists.'

Also I have added the source as per your request. But you need to be bolder and more confident in your stance if you have backing of relevant sources behind your assertions. Discuss. Be persistent like the water which cuts through rocks. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I've been bold till now and will be in future as well but different editors citing different reasons to revert my changes like the 'British Raj era sources not being accurate', has got be a bit confused.

Most of the sources here should be of British Raj itself.

The modern sources written by different authors about Kayasthas IN GENERAL should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Now that Kayasthas have been placed as Kshatriyas UNDER LAW after the Patna and Calcutta High court's ruling,why should modern books from different theorists stating Kayasthas are vaishya or shudra be taken into account in the first place? Books or articles written by such type of authors should not be taken into account at this stage.

Just my take on this issue.

Dinopce (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: Yes I hear that again and again about the Bengali Kayasthas. Personally I have greatest respect for them and few of the most respected childhood heros of mine are in fact Bengali Kayasthas, such as Swami Vivekananda and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

Now to return to your query. Dont fall for such traps. Ask them to show you the relevant Wikipedia rule. The Wikipedia rules are also not made of concrete, they are inprocess of evolution. But to reject your assertion atleast such case specific rule should exist. Most editors on Wikipedia are here to help you but I can not deny the existence of some deviant ones. Most of these deviants also use anglicized names though they are actually neither foreigners nor nuetral. Look at their edit history first, that should give you a good idea as to whether provide them with reasonable arguments or to just ignore them and go ahead.

The several decisions of councils of Pandits and religious institutions that I have provided go back for more than 200 years. Stick to them and the court decision. These are of the highest order, as they are not some random writing of some careless or opiniated individual but have high degree of authencity, brain-storming, knowledgeable discourse and due diligence. Which is in absolute contrast to random books, news articles, magazines etc. as are often cited by deviants to support their mischiefs. Also, point out that none of the controversial court decision even ruled against the Dwija status of Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas and CKPs. Highlight the point that all court decisions accepted the dwija status of Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas and these cases were not some futile excercise to decide a varna but had serious legal implications on inheritance, property, adotion, legality of child etc. The few cases that did call the Bengali Kayastha as Shudra also acknowledged their Kshatriya origin, this point should be clearly brought out. Also point out that after categorizing them as such there was a surprising void between the 1st and 4th Varna in Bengal. The highest caste was priestly Brahmins, with no intermediate between them and the Bengali Kayastha, who were the actual surrogate Kshatriya caste in Bengal and had been Kings and zamindars and the foremost landowing caste like the Rajputs of Daob. In fact even from more than 400 years ago Abul Fazal wrote that most of the Zamindars in Bengal were Bengali Kayasthas. Let me also point out something interesting here that due to such futile legal confusion, the Bengali Kayastha had no qulams about 'crossing the seas' to travel and study abroad while if you go through some minutes of North-Indian Kayastha Councils even in the early 1900s, debates were still going on for and against reasonability and justification to promote general acceptability among Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha to 'cross the seas', as such travels were prohibited by orthodox religion, due to which Chitraguptvanshis were lagging behind the Bengalis in western education. Consequently the Bengali Kayasthas were the real winner in the race for western education and high offices.

You keep on editing and providing high quality sources, the experienced and neutral editors will atlast come to your rescue, though you may not see it coming, dont lose hope, continue treading hard. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Will keep this in my mind.

Dinopce (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I found a source to include the name of Brahma Kayastha in the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page.

https://archive.org/details/BrahmaKayasthaLalitaPrasadDattaBengali1909/mode/2up

The name of the above book is Brahma Kayastha. But it's in Bengali.

Will it work as source? Dinopce (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another book that I found here is written by foreign writers.

https://www.loot.co.za/product/jesse-russell-kayastha/zcgc-2032-g990

https://www.flipkart.com/kayastha/p/itmdyrcvqg84xxs5?pid=9785510818352&lid=LSTBOK9785510818352KTHWXC&marketplace=FLIPKART&pageUID=1585814382248

It's written that the above book is based on high quality wikipedia articles.

I hope that they haven't mentioned anything wrong here by depending on the wrong content written on wikipedia earlier.

Wanted to bring this to your notice. Bye Dinopce (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will be preferable if you could find an english edition or atleast a transaction or reference in some book. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nikhil_Srivastava

Should I try using the book's name as reference?

Also,I've found site in English where the word 'Kayastha Brahmin' has been used as a sub-sect of Brahmins.

https://www.vepachedu.org/manasanskriti/Brahmins.html

Can this be used in anyway?

Dinopce (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: There you have asked a very important question. I will give you a generic answer. Websites can be and are often used as sources, but they are mostly government or well-established organization's websites. The important term here is 'authenticity'. If you use a website as a source you should be 'rationally and reasonably sure' (as a common editor cannot be expected to be personally completely sure about government figures provided by different nations either but laws of probability and possibilty have to be applied) about its authenticity and be ready to convince the other editors in case of dispute. If other editors are okay with it or do not have any issues with its addition as a source, it can very well be quoted then. So my advice would be to go ahead and add it as a source, if you think the website is legit and the information provided by it can be trusted. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same article has been published in researchgate.net! Researchgate articles are authentic in my opinion. Dinopce (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the work. Plz check and fix something if needed.

I've added the Brahma Kayastha part as well citing the book's name itself which should be considered as source.

Let's see what they say. Dinopce (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of links 1,2,3, I wanted it to be 1,1a and 2.

The 1st two links are of the same subject matter or content but on different sites. Not sure which one will they consider authentic.

Dinopce (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I forgot to send the research gate's article here for your reference.I'm pasting it below.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282367530_BRAHMINS. Dinopce (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayasth varna status and origin section

Hi, https://www.scribd.com/document/235518362/Kayasth-A

Check the 'varna status' section in the above link.

A few years ago,Wikipedia had these in the varna section instead of only the Kshatriya part.

Where are these taken from? Dinopce (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinopce: The source must have been mentioned in the article. Even if they were not, you currently have sources supporting both Brahmin and Kshatriya status for different Kayastha sub-groups. Also go to Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha talk page where I have mentioned a few in the Kayastha Brahmin/ Brahma-Kayastha section. You can modify the varna status section if you think it is lacking something, just be sure to provide sources for your assertions. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Understood. Dinopce (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with the following paragraph in the Kayastha page,'Origin'section .

"Some texts refer to them as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin[18] Kshatriya[19][20] and Vaishya castes but eventually forming distinct sub-castes in northern and western India. They have therefore also been called a umbrella caste with mixture of varnas in the sense that it is formed of various sub-groups of different varna status[1], competing with Brahmins for the highest administrative officers in medieval India.[21][22]"

The above para has been reworded by you to make it comply with the WP:NPOV guidelines WHICH IS A GOOD THING. BUT,I'd like to add that the Vaishya part(whose link is not provided) shouldn't be considered legit EVEN IF SOMEBODY PROVIDES A LINK TO IT IN FUTURE, FROM SOME AUTHOR'S BOOK WHO IS A THEORIST AND RADICAL IN MATTERS REGARDING KAYASTHAS.

Where in history have Kayastha's profession been that of a businessman? When Britishers came,Bengali Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas BOTH were given grants to do business. If that's the reason why Kayasthas are being deemed Vaishya,THEN IT'S WRONG.

If not,then what's the reason for adding the Vaishya part? If by Vaishya,they mean Ambasthas of Bengal,then it's WRONG TO CONSIDER THEM VAISHYA UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF 'INDIAN KANOON'. They along with other sub-castes OF KAYASTHAS have been accorded the KSHATRIYA STATUS UNDER LAW(if that's what people want here on wikipedia).

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

Read Point no. 73 in the link above

I know that the fact that Kayasthas come under Brahmin varna as well(NOT proven under law) since ONLY people under Brahmin varna can become Vidwaan(as far as my knowledge goes).

Janeu ceremony is still prevalent in several Kayastha families.

I hope that you might have understood as to why I'm not in favour of that paragraph now.

India Today Encyclopedia's Kayastha article is just one source(THE OTHER PARTS OF THAT 'Kayastha' ARTICLE IS USED AT 3 DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE ENTIRE Kayasthapage!

1st place:Some texts refer to them as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin[18] Kshatriya[19][20] and Vaishya castes but eventually forming distinct sub-castes in northern and western India. They have therefore also been called a umbrella caste with mixture of varnas in the sense that it is formed of various sub-groups of different varna status[1], competing with Brahmins for the highest administrative officers in medieval India.[21][22].

2nd place:You've replaced it with the new link. NICE TO KNOW! :)

3rd place:Early medieval India sub-section(under 'History' section) Brahmanical religious texts refer to the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas as a caste responsible for writing secular documents and maintaining records from the 7th century onward.[22]

I don't see anything wrong with the above paragraph BUT THIS PARAGRAPH CAN BE USED BY THE ANTI-KAYASTH EDITORS TO SAY THAT THE '1st place' WHICH I MENTIONED IN THIS DISCUSSION ABOVE IS ALSO CREDIBLE,WHEN IT'S NOT(according to me)!

PS:I hope that you might have understood the reason as to why I'm not in favour of the first '1st place' where that India Today article's content have been used in the Kayastha page. I hope that my logic is NEUTRAL,AND IS COMPLYING WITH THE GUIDELINES OF WIKIPEDIA.:) Dinopce (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you've not understood my point or if you've anything in favour(your perspective) of that '1st place'article,then please let me know. Dinopce (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wikipedia pages that are deleted...

Hi,

I came across a site that has used wikipedia articles in its 'References' section. When the pages from wikipedia were added into this site,those pages were actually there but now those pages have been removed from Wikipedia.

The following is the blog I'm talking about: http://srivastavaak.blogspot.com/2010/05/kayastha.html?m=1

The 'References' section has got links IN RED. I enquired about this from one of the senior editors. He told me that only the Yam Samhita page has been removed from Wikipedia due to non-notability.

Other pages like Vyom Samhita etc were never created and can be added on wikipedia by the users.

But I think that those other pages have been removed from Wikipedia as well. Otherwise, why would the author of the above mentioned blog mention those pages in the 'References' section. Pages like Vyom Samhita would've been beneficial in adding content to the Kayastha page.

Just wanted to bring this to your notice. Dinopce (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring this to your notice as you're also an old editor. Dinopce (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, pages can be deleted and even the Kayastha page was nominated for deletion back in the days, if my memory does not fail me. But you can always create them. Infact, if I am not mistaken, Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha page was created by me. So go ahead and create the pages if you have sourced information. I see a great future for you, you are really keen to learn and improve your knowledge and that of others. Keep up the good work. Keep me posted, even if I dont reply promptly, rest assured that I will. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No,I don't have sourced information. I'm also not a Vidwaan that I'll know that much about these topics.:) Dinopce (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. utcursch | talk 20:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is for your continual addition of content that fails WP:V. For example, in this edit you added a long list of names citing sources that do not even mention the word "Chitraguptavanshi".

You have already been blocked thrice in past by three different administrators, and your now-blanked talk page was littered with information about WP:V and WP:RS. So, your fourth block is 3 months long: the next one will be indefinite. utcursch | talk 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving Wikipedia from now on.

After my last block I made sure that EACH assertion, however obvious, that was made by me was accompanied by relevant source. I had also advised and encouraged other editors to do the same. Yet my good faith edits have been undone and I have been blocked citing a flimsy reason. I hope there is an audit of administrators on Wikipedia too, because some current ones are of really poor quality. I dont hope to return. Bye. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]