User talk:Samlobo44

Who is sock?

@Gogo Dodo,Can you see my edits once ?I am Contesting the recent edits by giving reference.Can’t I do that?How can you call me sock in this case? Samlobo44 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gogo DodoSo the message posted by someone is correct then.Whoever edits will be categorised as Joshi Punekar and Citations will be suppressed.Rite? Samlobo44 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2024 (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).

Samlobo44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contested the edits done by the editor,I have done only 3 edits not a single disruptive edit.I have categorised as sock without investigation against wiki policySamlobo44 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no policy that requires a formal investigation, especially when it is obvious from the edits, as it is in this case. It could be meat puppetry, but either way, it is treated the same. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2024 (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.

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).

Samlobo44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contested the edits done by the editor,I have done only 3 edits not a single disruptive edit.I have categorised as sock without investigation against wiki policySamlobo44 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; deliberately abusive unblock request by duplicating an already declined request. Yamla (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2024 (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.

Talk page is meant to talk the creative things and Edits done by me in par with the Wikipedia policy

@Hölderlin2019I am contesting your edits,so discuss and take the consensus for the big allegation against well established community. Samlobo44 (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hölderlin2019

1.Senavis have been mentioned as synonym for the saraswat Brahmins(Including all chitrapur and Rajapur) but research clearly tells they were one sub community of GSB.The division was probably added by @Jonathansammy in the classification.Please refer that.

2.Show me the reference for removing the word Brahmins and Gaud.I can

show the bunch of resources in favour of this.

3.You have mentioned as contenting caste.According to which source?

4.I have read all the source and let me summarise.

source one-“Gaud saraswat and daivadya were not necessary identified as brahmin by nambodharis as they came by sea”.The same book tells as they were brahmins travankore Raja gave them land to build temples.

Context:This is when Portuguese attacked goa and they escaped the persecution via sea route which is considered as bad omen by nambodharis.The same book even categorised the Brahmins in Kerala as nambodharis,Iyers and gaud saraswat.Even Iyers too were considered as low caste.

5.Source2:”Deshasthas,chitpavans and Karhade were united in rejecting brahminhood claim by saraswat,wagle

himself has provided the animosity between Maharashtra Brahmins”

context:Deshpande cites wagle’s book where he mentions due to politics between Brahmins of Maharashtra and due to dislike(Animosity) for Saraswat the other Dravid Brahmins have tried to reject their Brahmin claim.

If you go in-depth with wagles book he is speaking about politics between Maratha Brahmins.Success of Saraswat in getting administrative roles and mutual mudding.Karhade were chanllenged by Chitpavan,deshasthas Yajurvedis

were challenged by Chitpavan and Karhade,citpavans were considered non Brahmins by deshasthas.Newly arrived saraswat were targeted by existing Brahmins in Pune and the word used by Wagle is animosity(Dislike).This reference is speaking about saraswat not specifically Gaud saraswat.Samlobo44 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hölderlin2019One more information to add here,

here the editor has purposefully used anonymously instead of animosity(Refer the citation).Both are 360 degree apart.So by reading this you cannot come to conclusion instead read the resource completely.Expecting your reply/Justifications.Inviting experienced editors gives two cents from your end.

Regards, Samlobo44 (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit your reply

@331dotWhat do you mean by meat puppetry,Show me where I have done that ?.Single account is asking to revisit the edit with the reference.So will you call anyone writing in talk page as sock ? Samlobo44 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotDon’t it look odd to consider someone as sock based on the edits giving reference? Samlobo44 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined requests may not be removed until the block is removed, per WP:BLANKING. Yes, anyone who makes similar edits as a blocked user will be blocked as a sock. If you aren't a sock, you will have no problem abandoning efforts to edit about this topic and telling what edits you will make instead. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot“. Yes, anyone who makes similar edits as a blocked user will be blocked as a sock”

This is what I am telling no one has done any edits like me till now !.only once if you see the edits that’s enough . Samlobo44 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotTalk page is meant to talk the creative things and Edits done by me in par with the Wikipedia policy

The above folder has all the details of talk.Show me a single sock based edits. Samlobo44 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotToday you may neglect me but I am standing in a truth way .God is watching me and you no one can escape karma. Samlobo44 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotAs you told abandoning edits happily I can accept that but in this page they have given one source and written other things.I went through whole reference and found they have written what’s not there in the citation.Should I keep quite? Samlobo44 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say, do not ping me again. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New request as per yamla

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).

Samlobo44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contested the edits done by the editor,I have done only 3 edits not a single disruptive edit nor a single edits match the claimed sock in the talk page.I have categorised as sock without investigation against wiki policy

Decline reason:

This same request has already been declined twice. It remains just as unconvincing as before. I'm also revoking you're access to this page to keep you from wasting any more of our time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2024 (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.

Samlobo44 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]