User talk:Bpandey89

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bhumihar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for caste articles

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Bishonen | talk 16:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your posts

You need to post on user talk pages like User talk:Sitush, not on user pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

You are still trying to censor the Bhumihar article by removing sourced material, seemingly just because you do not like it. You've had a sanctions warning above and this really is your last chance. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangal Pandey

Please do not re-add the assertion that Mangal Pandey was a Bhumihar Brahmin unless you can provide a reliable source for it. I have explained on the talk page that the source that had been used for it merely said "Some people say that Mangal was born in a Bhumihar Brahmin family…," and that's not good enough. If you can find a better source (eg there might be something in the Rupa & Co book if you have access to it) then please present it at the talk page discussion at Talk:Mangal Pandey#Bhumihar Brahmin. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar brahmin or babhan

Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community are mentioned as follows

(1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

(2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA59&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

(3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CGMqAQAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw

(4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D5lQutvzAp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20&f=false

(5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voe3AAAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA266&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

(6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dxDWbsztdVQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Evolution+and+Spatial+Organization+of+Clan+Settlements:+A+Case+Study+of+...++By+Saiyad+Hasan+Ansari&source=bl&ots=Z2K627D9Qw&sig=p0YFJjE2ASP6v09wVCn3DY6riRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tKMUVOqGKonjuQShw4DoAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20and%20Spatial%20Organization%20of%20Clan%20Settlements%3A%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20...%20%20By%20Saiyad%20Hasan%20Ansari&f=false

(7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar

(8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

(9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up

(10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

(11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bhumihar&f=false

(12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uEP-ceGYsnYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false page no 83 and 84

(13) Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gHNoU2zcDnIC&pg=PA1&dq=rajput+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8eVKO8MZKTuATy3YLwBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rajput%20origin&f=false

(14)Medieval India: From Sultanate To The Mughals: Part I: Delhi Sultanate By Satish Chandra

senari massacre http://www.pucl.org/reports/Bihar/2001/jehanabad.htm

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community.

Hi sir, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahmin origin. It is a total biased to write a fictitious and fabricated tale or legend meant to insult a community which has been given in ashwani kumar's book (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and politically awaken today) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned Senari massacre and other massacre (available on ranvir sena Wikipedia ) in which mcc, Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan cruelly like Islamic state terrorist organisation of present time. This book is a totally biases against upper caste (i.e. Class) and trying to emphasize only on false tales and fabricated stories which has come out of sheer jealousy (refer 7 and 8 citation mentioned above). There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar's book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Wikipedia he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true historically. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom (ref 13 & 14). Initially they (Rajputs) were centred around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularized by babhan landlords. In british raj they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community till 1891 British census.(ref 9 &12) So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list. Bhumihar brahmin or bhumihar name for this entire babhan community was popularized during the same period. sahjanand also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar( 7, 10 & 12). Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput(6). It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder(ref 8). Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jujhautiya_Brahmin).

One more point I want to mention is that new fictitious and imaginary theory which has evolved quite recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in British colonial era. Babhan (i.e. Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in british colonial period. (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the census report and abstract of book to unveil this false statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up)and (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) (i.e. ref 9, 12)These books clearly denote that babhans were considered as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas , they fought to get included in mere priestly Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact.

It is quite disappointing that Some of the wikipedians are persistently showing might is right kind of policy. I have mentioned enough history books to support my point but some are showing biased view. I am persistently telling that please write the historical document. What ever book i have mentioned above are the credible historic account(document).}}</nowiki>

The above block has expired. I've just fixed the unblock template, which included edits from just after BPandey89's block on 11 November through to today. Couldn't manage anything better than this, sorry: the edits were added piecemeal to what appears to have been the original request. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add an active unblock request into the queue for a block that has expired. If there's some other way to show it for posterity, then feel free to edit the nowiki tags I added; just don't add it as an active request. Kuru (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: sorry, I didn't know how to deal with this properly but did know that something needed to be done, if only to give this contributor an idea of how to use the unblock function in future ;) I've watchlisted this page now, so hopefully any such issues can be dealt with more promptly when they arise. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bhumihar brahmin/babhan

Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community.

1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly url= http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA59&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CGMqAQAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw

4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D5lQutvzAp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20&f=false

5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voe3AAAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ

6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dxDWbsztdVQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Evolution+and+Spatial+Organization+of+Clan+Settlements:+A+Case+Study+of+...++By+Saiyad+Hasan+Ansari&source=bl&ots=Z2K627D9Qw&sig=p0YFJjE2ASP6v09wVCn3DY6riRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tKMUVOqGKonjuQShw4DoAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20and%20Spatial%20Organization%20of%20Clan%20Settlements%3A%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20...%20%20By%20Saiyad%20Hasan%20Ansari&f=false

7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. url==https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar

8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya url==https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian Govt. url==https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891

10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bhumihar&f=false

12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1 senari massacre http://www.pucl.org/reports/Bihar/2001/jehanabad.htm

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community. Sometimes they are also called as Bhramarshi. Brahmin is a priestly class in hindu community, but many Brahmins were landlords during British and mughal era.

Hi everybody, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan, which is an old name for bhumihar brahmin which had been used in early colonial census of british india (ref 9)) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahminic (of brahmin) origin. It is a total bias to write a tale and false fiction of ashwani kumar (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and availing reservation in all wakes of life, even in judiciary and legislature in India) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned Senari massacre and other massacre (available on ranvir sena Wikipedia ) in which mcc, Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan cruelly like Islamic state terrorist organisation of present time. This book is a totally biases against upper caste (i.e. Class) and trying to emphasise only on false tales and fabricated story which has come out of sheer jealousy. There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Wikipedia he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom. (Refer Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gHNoU2zcDnIC&pg=PA1&dq=rajput+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8eVKO8MZKTuATy3YLwBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rajput%20origin&f=false or you can refer book from eminent historian like Satish Chandra for medival india.) Initially they (Rajputs) were centred around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularised by babhan landlords as well as sahjanand saraswati. In early british census report(till 1891 census) they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community. So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Bhumihar Brahman/Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list and also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar. Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput. It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder. Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jujhautiya_Brahmin). In most of the sites the sahjanand thoughts are distorted and presented. It is highly pathetic.

One more point I want to mention is that a new fictitious and imaginary theory which has evolved recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and colonial era. Babhan (Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in British colonial census report.(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the early British census report and one book abstract which evidently tells the falsehood of the above statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url== https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891 & url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up) and (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress & url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) above books clearly denote that babhans were considered as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas , they fought to get included in mere priestly (i.e. donation taking) Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Bhumihar name was not used to list this entire community till 1891 census report. This entire community was listed with the name babhan till 1891 census under military and aristocratic category. There after sahjanand demanded abolishion of zamindari and inclusion of babhan as mere priestly donation taking brahmin list (since they have brahmnic origin) . Bhumihar word was also popularised and created by their groups(sahjanand group)only which included kashi naresh. 1901 onward bhumihar (i.e. babhan ) was categorised under mere priestly brahmin category. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact. We are talking about British India census claim without any substantial fact to verify that claim. some People have started unnecessary inclusions in wikipedia which is not at all historic. I feel that British census report statement or claim can be verified from the same census report not from mere supposition of an individual.User:Bpandey89 ; User_talk:Bpandey89 16:32, 12 December 2014

February 2015

Hi, Bpandey. I see you have stopped editing Bhumihar directly and consequently stopped adding POV material without reliable sources. That's very good, thank you for it. But I'm afraid there's a limit to what is acceptable on talkpages also. You have continued to argue on Talk:Bhumihar for including material based on unreliable Braitish Raj sources, despite having had their unacceptability explained to you many times. Using sources is not a matter of individual taste/opinion, but of what's reliable according to Wikipedia's rules. Also, your repeated attacks on Sitush and others are completely unacceptable — this kind of thing: "some editors of this page have extreme hostility and grudge", "putting up defamatory and fabricated tales", "I feel you [meaning Sitush] have special grudge or hostility towards this community… Do not make wikipedia a tool to show ur hostility or grudge", "Do not show hostility on wikipedia, it is not facebook" (!) "It is mere grudge or hostility", etc. This way of speaking to and of your fellow editors is totally unacceptable; comment on edits, not on editors. Please read the policies Assume good faith and No personal attacks. They are policies, not suggestions; you must abide by them on this site. No, Sitush doesn't have a grudge against any community or caste; he simply understands Wikipedia's sourcing policy, that's all, and he shouldn't have to explain it over and over. I'm sorry to give you so much to read (did you ever in fact look at the policies I linked for you in my block notice here?). Nevertheless, please also take a look at this short section of the Disruptive editing guideline. It explains very concisely what I see as your problem on Talk:Bhumihar. Please read it carefully, heed it, listen to Sitush's advice, and stop attacking him. If you don't, I'll have to consider topic banning you from all caste-related pages (including talkpages). Since caste articles seem to be your main interest on Wikipedia, I'm afraid you wouldn't like it much, and I wouldn't like having to do it. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Addressing others

I'd recommend not addressing anyone as "bro" on Wikipedia, even if I understand that you mean well. There are plenty of users who aren't male. And actually, even men might not appreciate being on such an intimate level of communication with a stranger. Consider this as one big workplace with colleagues of equal rank. Usernames, either in full or abbreviated somehow, are always the best way to go. To the best of my knowledge, those who edit under their real names (like me) don't mind being called by their first names. Full name works just as well, especially if you want to distinguish me from other Peters.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't object to "bro", although it is a bit unusual here. It is no secret that I am male. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]