User talk:Vvmundakkal

Hello, Vvmundakkal, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message. slakr^\ talk / 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava

Please discuss these edits on the article's talk page. The article is locked until people discuss changes and reach consensus. You might also want to read m:The Wrong Version. -- Merope 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia and Nair article changes.

First of all the fact that Nairs are Sudras in the Hindu caste system introduced by the Namboothiri Brahmins is mentioned in the article and does not need to be mentioned in the first line as it gives a misleading impression of the Nair profession historically, that is as people of Kerala know, the rulers and martial nobility. Some Nairs were elevated into kshatriya hood such as my own ancestor Chirakkal Nileshwaram Raja, known to our family as having taking the hiranyangarbha ceremony to be elevated into rightful Kshtariya status so Nairs are not all Sudras either(also Samanthan Kshatriyas are not Sudras and are Nairs). Nairs dominated Kerala in terms of influence in pre-Brahmin Kerala and less so to an extent post-Brahmin and then minimally after the Land Reforms Act. The article doesn't really have peacock terms as the Nairs did have a much stronger hold on Kerala than other high castes did in other states of India. The fact just so happens that Nairs had a glorious past. If there are peacock terms identify each one in the talk page and they shall be corrected. The Sudra mention in the first line I do not agree with as it is mentioned later in the article. I will remove this edit and if you have a problem we can take it up with an administrator. Also the article is of a good quality, better then the Ezhava article at least, and it does not need cleaning up, please discuss in the talk page before editing the main article, we are working to remove the uncited claims and POV.Cheers.B Nambiar 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said the social status should be introduced in the first sentence, and the social status of Nairs were that of a martial nobility, that is mentioned. Sudra is the varna for slaves/labourers, most Nairs were untouchable to the higher(in caste system) Namboothiris however they were never slaves/labourers to any one. So for precisely your reason labeling them Sudra in the first line is misleading. I merely added that Ezhavas were Dalits in the first line because it made the most sense as a synonymous term to "progressive" which is not a very descriptive word. The whole thing can be moved from the first line of the article if people or an administrator agrees in the Ezhava article. B Nambiar 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely moved the sources you idiot I didn't revert the third time. B Nambiar 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sudra status designated to Nair's should not be mentioned in the first sentence as it is misleading and I propose the references you have added should be moved to the second section where the Sudra status is mentioned. B Nambiar 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian peoples page.

Please discuss before starting an edit-war, see talk page of Dravidian people.B Nambiar 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava

Look, I spent a month with people going over the language at Talk:Ezhava. Don't make large changes like that without at least attempting to discuss it with others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you don't seem to use the talk page. You revert other people's work and insert huge blocks of text without explaining what you are doing. I'm warning you that you need to start using the talk page and discussing your edits with others or it will simply be reverted. You are being disruptive otherwise. Also, I've redirected List of Notable Ezhavas back to Ezhava due to it being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhava Tharavads. If you want to bring it back, bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review or do what I asked months ago and find sources for people. Creating the article again and again with slightly different names is only going to get you blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I included Kumaran Asan under a 'Notable Ezhava' since he was the one sourced name at List of Notable Ezhavas.[1] Again, if you provide sources, feel free to add and there are no issues. Also I noticed that while you reinsert this text (with a reference) [2], you simply put a series of references at the end of the paragraph. Ignoring the fact that it seems you simply copied the text from before (including having the same source listed twice again), it would be better for you to list which source is for which sentence (i.e. place the ref tags with the sentences). The paragraphs are very long and contain a number of points; it does not help to make it a guessing game as to which sources are for what. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I didn't vote on the first one and the second time a number of other people did also. Policy is that if it is voted deleted, the text needs to remain deleted. Creating the article again and again is just plain disruptive. I've pointed you to where you can go (deletion review) if you want to argue for the list to be created again. As for the other articles, you are free to list them for deletion yourself. It is not that hard really; you can tell people about these earlier deletion discussions and see what people think. In fact, if you did so I would probably support you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four points. First, how am I supposed to reply to your post? I've asked numerous times that people bring actual sources to articles. Saying how organizations describe themselves and you saying your personal views (which is against the policy of original research) of what it means is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't pass the require tests of a reliable source or the greater verifiability standard. I don't ask you to read all that but you need to at least attempt to find a source. Second, do not attack people as "Nair fanatics" or "Ezhava haters." That is a violation of WP:CIVIL which you do not seem to get. Do not attack the motives of other people; keep that up and you will be blocked. Third, I'm not sure what your point about Orkut forums is for me. I don't know anything about them nor do I particularly care. Fourth, if you are planning on contacting some sort of government official, that seems to constitute a legal threat and per WP:LEGAL policy, you will be blocked permanently. Again, I will repeat myself. Speak on the talk page. Show sources. The article is to stay "neutral." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vvmundakkal. I am going to leave the article completely for someone else to deal with. Good luck. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, I would suggest you express any views at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orkut_forum_and_meatpuppetry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tag on Menon

How is it possible to add references concerning whether anyone is a particular Nair subcaste? Information on this is not available anywhere except through word of mouth and people on the list would have been accurately placed there by a Menon wikipedian or someone with knowledge of the persons family. The references tag makes the article look less credible, which in this case it is credible.B Nambiar 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you list an article for deletion, let it run its course. Removing the tag is considered vandalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ezhava

Hi, I responded to your requested additions at Talk:Ezhava#November_2007_addition. Can you at least confirm that the text I have in bold is accurate? If so, I can put it in immediately. And I'll repeat what I said there; if you feel that I am not being fair, you can always use {{editprotected}} and see if another admin would agree to the edit. If another admin edits it your way, it would be vandalism on my part to just change it back unilaterally (violating a policy known as WP:OWN). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iyer

Don't insert your point of view in articles. We need material to be cited to reliable sources. -SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]