User talk:Ramarao1234

Talk

Me Rama Rao ahe ani ye account Ratnagiri Ramarao che ahe.

Misrepresenting the information

Dear @Jonathansammy, I hope I am mailing a correct person.Seems like you are experienced editor just wanted one clarification for the below statament. ” Gaud Saraswat Brahmins (GSB) (also Goud or Gawd), also known as Shenvis are a Hindu community of contested caste status and identity” -This source less statement and based on two different citations coming to conclusion by removing good sourced statement is not allowed in Wikipedia. My explanation:Shenvi and GSB are not synonymous instead there are multiple groups inside GSB.GSB brahminhood was never challenged instead Shenvi brahminhood was challenged which they defended using banarus pandits.It was a part of gramanya. So based one which this worst statement removing brahmin claim came to the scenario? Ramarao1234 (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ramarao1234 (talk), Varna status has been disputed in the last few centuries for many communities, and prominent people including Shivaji.Personally, caste and sub-castes are nothing but another name for tribes and Varna disignation was mainly a mischief played by the British to keep Hindus fighting amongst each other.But putting so much emphasis on varna,I think,is a case of Wikipedia:UNDUE. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to devote to this article but I do keep an eye on it and remove blatant cherry-picking.Thanks.

@ Jonathansammy, Thank you for replying,I can point out huge cherry picking in that page.I didn’t understood why top noch researcher like irawati karve and guhye is being disrespected by the editor there!! In that page I found so much hate,Ex:Malicious Deep explanation of Varna and to prove they aren’t Brahmins.Irony is not a single dispute has been mentioned except cherry picking to the level best.

If possible please go through this statement

1“Gaud Saraswat Brahmins (GSB) (also Goud or Gawd), also known as Shenvis are a Hindu community of contested caste status and identity”-This is baseless and sourceless.

2.”Deshasthas,Chitpavan and Karhade were united in rejecting brahminhood of Saraswat and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity” -I have read above paper completely,Wagle is explaining the dislike between Brahmins of Maharashtra and mutual slandering because of politics but here the editor has cherry picked this.

3. Upon moving out of Goa, their claims of Brahminhood were rejected both to the north[citation needed], by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins of Maharashtra, and to the south, by the Nambudiri Brahmins of Kerala, and were not recognized in British colonial records. -The true quote is speaking about GSB arriving to Kerala via sea route which was considered impure by nambodharis and same paper is speaking about Raja accepting them as Brahmins donating lands.

4.shenvais has been mentioned as synonym in the first page but prominent researcher like karve clearly explained the different categories where shenvi is one part but modern scholars explained the content using the specs of Maratha empire and mentions shenavi as GSB.

5.Sahyadrikahnd explanation is one sided cherry picking with unnecessary interconnection mainly Bambadekar and Sharmila rege.Bambadekar is basically a British Raj person don’t know how Bahujan writers become neutral?

5.Only one dispute of shenavis was 1600AD(approx) clash I.e.Karhade vs shenavis regarding Satkarma Brahmins status and reason was FISH EATING.This has been justified by benarus brahmins.This you can find in O’Hanon(2010 and 2013) both the paper.

6.I appreciate you for mentioning classification that shows your research maturity->This is what Irawati and ghuye both have mentioned in their publications. This is the reason why I am messaging you,being a true researcher hope you look into it. <Reply is not necessary if you understand my concern that’s enough Dr….!>

Ramarao1234 (talk), I recommend you leave the varna dispute, and the lede as it is for now and concentrate on adding new content to the classification, and modern status (20th 21st century) of the the GSB communities.I contributed a lot to the Deshastha Brahmin page. You can use that as a template to expand the article. One of the editors on the GSB page has Sanskritization as his specialty and tackles everything through that lense which for the average wikipedia reader would be of little importance.Anyhow, good luck with editing.Let me know if you need help with sourcing.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@JonathansammyAnyhow I am unable to edit talk page nor that page lock symbol is there at top.please watch this below content.watch out below content and sourced(Oxford,springer,duke and Cambridge),

Gaud Saraswat Brahmins(GSB) (also Goud or Gawd) are a Hindu Brahmin community, who are part of the larger Saraswat Brahmin community that migrated to Konkan from Gaud, as per the Skanda Purana in ancient India. They belong to the Pancha (five) Gauda Brahmana groups.They primarily speak Konkani and it's various dialects, as their mother tongue. Ramarao1234 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will try to change but this may take time. Also this can staart an edit war. Thanks for your patience.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@JonathansammyThank you! Ramarao1234 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ekdalian (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely I will take care of rules.

@Ekdalian Ramarao1234 (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Current research articles by

Irawati karve(1969)-Done Rosalind(2010,2013,2016)-Done Levitt(2017)-Ambiguity Wagle(1979)-Done Deshpande(2010)-High ambiguities but literature review. Gagabhattkrut:Shri shiv Rajyaabhishek prayog-Currently

Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hi @RegentsParkSock!!Are you sure about this decision?

I have mentioned my alternative account in my User page as per the rules of Wikipedia.What’s the issue for this block? Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request with proof

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).

Ramarao1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear visiting admins, Assuming good faith towards the admin who blocked me just I want to give some proof for wrongly categorisation as puppet. As per the rule of Wikipedia(Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry-Alternate Account notification),I have mentioned my alternative account in the User page with reason for second account creation.(Please refer my user page) Secondly based on this I found the case against me in this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar

Verdict is as follows: “Duck blocked on strong behavioral evidence.”

So let me show the evidence here, 1.Behavioral evidence: Using the user talk page to ping editors and try to discuss e.g. 1 and 2.

Observations: In the first evidence,It is my talk page where I am talking with the experienced editor as the talk page of that article was locked(Refer timeline of article talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin at that time).I have mentioned this in the message too(Refer:My Talk page)

Second seems like a user named Sama lobo is scolding some admin after getting blocked as only talk page will be active and nothing can be used at that time.

Hope this cannot be a comparison at all.Atleast check user would have been done in that case or would have warned me Incase if I am doing wrong.

2. “Voluminous discussions on the talk page mentioned above, exactly in line with the previous socks.” All the discussions were related to development of that article so giving quote and reference is what required in that stage which seems big.Ethically and within the boundary of Wikipedia I cannot play blame game with any editors with few lines.It is consensus phase and should give detailed references(Refer:talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin)

As per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks-I am requesting you to revisit the decision as my edits may be hardly 30 all are related to discussion in one article page.Didn’t even edited a single article not even the article which I was discussing.So disrupting,vandalism or any other allegations are even related in this case to consider me as sock.Moreover the previous issue in this page have blocked all the IPs editing this talk page(Refer Joshi Punekar page).Hope this will be revisited.

Ramarao1234 (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool confirms the block is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Ramarao1234 (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Share the check user info

Dear @PhilKnight,If check user is confirming my account with other account can you name the account,Isn’t it Rodrigus0? Ramarao1234 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnightI have mentioned everything in the user page about alternative account as per wiki policy.Then how is that considered sock?.Let me share some information for you,Newslinger has blocked all the IPs involved in any sort of sock.So how come my IP might have been used by any sock?Please refer the below link.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar/Archive Ramarao1234 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not going into detail about the checkuser findings. PhilKnight (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnightI know that I am not a sock. What can I do now to prove this ? Ramarao1234 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you post another unblock request so another checkuser can see if I am interpreting the results correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnightThank you, anyhow I’ll raise a new request.Really I am unable to get the issue as i have only 2 accounts. Ramarao1234 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnightHave you seen the page [[Wikipedia

Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar]] if the investigation is that genuine then how they categorised that new user(Rajesh Fadnvis) as sock of mine!There should be some flaws isn’t it?If the check user is soo perfect how that user was linked to me ?

Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Refer my account User page

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).

Ramarao1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear visiting admins, Assuming good faith towards the admin who blocked me just I want to give some proof for wrongly categorisation as puppet. As per the rule of Wikipedia(Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry-Alternate Account notification),I have mentioned my alternative account in the User page with reason for second account creation.(Please refer my user page) Secondly based on this I found the case against me in this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar Verdict is as follows: “Duck blocked on strong behavioral evidence.” So let me show the evidence here, 1.Behavioral evidence: Using the user talk page to ping editors and try to discuss e.g. 1 and 2. Observations: In the first evidence,It is my talk page where I am talking with the experienced editor as the talk page of that article was locked(Refer timeline of article talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin at that time).I have mentioned this in the message too(Refer:My Talk page) Second seems like a user named Sama lobo is scolding some admin after getting blocked as only talk page will be active and nothing can be used at that time. Hope this cannot be a comparison at all.Atleast check user would have been done in that case or would have warned me Incase if I am doing wrong. 2. “Voluminous discussions on the talk page mentioned above, exactly in line with the previous socks.” All the discussions were related to development of that article so giving quote and reference is what required in that stage which seems big.Ethically and within the boundary of Wikipedia I cannot play blame game with any editors with few lines.It is consensus phase and should give detailed references(Refer:talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin) As per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks-I am requesting you to revisit the decision as my edits may be hardly 30 all are related to discussion in one article page.Didn’t even edited a single article not even the article which I was discussing.So disrupting,vandalism or any other allegations are even related in this case to consider me as sock.Moreover the previous issue in this page have blocked all the IPs editing this talk page(Refer Joshi Punekar page).Hope this will be revisited. New Important update : Visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar currently they have marked one user named @Rakesh Fadnavis as sock of mine!.I am no way concerned with that account.This shows the flaws in the investigation.Seems they did the samething to me. Note:Don’t publish any privacy details of mine including IP and other private details

Decline reason:

In addition to the previous block, I think competence may be coming into play here. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Ramarao1234 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)