Mr.fakepolicy

  Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Vellalar sub castes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

no, its not by mistake, Devendrakula Velalar or Devendrakulam and isai vellalar actually doesn't fall under the vellalar sub-caste. both are different caste which starting using the name vellalar name recently and even some within the vellalars claim it as “identity theft” and “cultural misappropriation”. as for as i know even Devendrakula Velalar doesn't claim them as a sub-caste of vellalar. The Devendrakula Velalar itself a umbrella term for seven castes in the state of Tamil Nadu. Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm mdr. I noticed that you recently removed karaiyar content from mudaliaar castes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 14.102.67.102 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mudaliaar is a title gave to karaiyar by dutch in srilanka so there is no problem to include karaiyar to mudaliaar caste. 14.102.67.102 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input regarding the title Mudaliar and its connection to the Karaiyar community. I understand your perspective that the Dutch granted the title to certain individuals from the Karaiyar community in Sri Lanka. However, the historical context of the Mudaliar title indicates that it was traditionally conferred by Tamil kings to individuals of a specific caste, serving as a social or administrative designation within their community.

Over time, the title Mudaliar has been adopted by various groups for purposes of social upliftment or recognition. While this reflects the fluidity of social identities, it does not necessarily imply that the title originally belonged to or was equally shared by all communities. Therefore, in maintaining historical accuracy and context, I believe it is appropriate to limit the title’s association to its historically recognized caste origins unless there is substantial evidence to support a broader inclusion.

I removed the association of the Karaiyar community with the Mudaliar title on Wikipedia to ensure that the information remains accurate and reflects the traditional and historical usage of the title. If there is verifiable historical evidence to support the claim that the Mudaliar title was used more broadly or specifically by the Karaiyar community beyond the Dutch period, I encourage you to provide credible sources for review.

As an additional reference, the work of Robb, Peter (1996), Meanings of Agriculture: Essays in South Asian History and Economics (Oxford University Press, p. 348-349), discusses the historical context of titles like Mudaliar and their significance within the caste-based social structure.

Thank you for your understanding. Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you 14.102.67.102 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Mudaliar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes mr fakepolicy I got evidence that varunakulattan is a karaiyar orgin he works under tamil king thanjavur nayak kingdom.mudaliyar is a title whom belongs to higher rank in army and administration so from that aspect also we can claim that karaiyar belongs to Mudaliar example sengundar kaikolar mudaliyar are genral of chola dynasty Madheshwhararajk (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input regarding the title Mudaliar and its connection to the Karaiyar community. I understand your perspective that the Dutch granted the title to certain individuals from the Karaiyar community in Sri Lanka. However, the historical context of the Mudaliar title indicates that it was traditionally conferred by Tamil kings to individuals of a specific caste, serving as a social or administrative designation within their community.

Over time, the title Mudaliar has been adopted by various groups for purposes of social upliftment or recognition. While this reflects the fluidity of social identities, it does not necessarily imply that the title originally belonged to or was equally shared by all communities. Therefore, in maintaining historical accuracy and context, I believe it is appropriate to limit the title’s association to its historically recognized caste origins unless there is substantial evidence to support a broader inclusion.

I removed the association of the Karaiyar community with the Mudaliar title on Wikipedia to ensure that the information remains accurate and reflects the traditional and historical usage of the title. If there is verifiable historical evidence to support the claim that the Mudaliar title was used more broadly or specifically by the Karaiyar community beyond the Dutch period, I encourage you to provide credible sources for review.

As an additional reference, the work of Robb, Peter (1996), Meanings of Agriculture: Essays in South Asian History and Economics (Oxford University Press, p. 348-349), discusses the historical context of titles like Mudaliar and their significance within the caste-based social structure.

Thank you for your understanding. Mr.fakepolicy (talk)

Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mr fake poilicy I contributed the varunakulattan whom comes under karaiyar origin he is a genral of thanjavur nayak dynasty from that to I can able to claim that varunakulattan is a Mudaliar like chola for sengundar kaikollar Mudaliar Madheshwhararajk (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

i think you need to understand something "Mudaliar" is a title given to a specific caste people in a particular region called Thondaimandalam which is ruled by cholas. this is first given to the particular vellalar subcaste in the area such as thondaimandala vellalar (Kondaikatti and Thuluva vellalar) who helped the chola king to capture the thondaimandalam region from the Kurumba. later a caste called Kaikolar also get the title by work under the chola, but later this title was used to many caste for the social upliftment such as agamudaiyar and karaiyar, even among them very few of them using it, now days many of the caste using it, that doesn't mean all are mudaliars and can be included. and as for the Varunakulattan you're talking about being a general, almost most of an people from different caste have been worked as an general to king at different period of time, so that doesn't make sense to give them mudaliar title. please don't be biased or try to include your personal opinion on public article. thank you Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mr.fake policy I included the contribution that you need from tamil king here thanjavur nayak is considered as a tamil king. Madheshwhararajk (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

SerialNumber54129 15:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Quid Est Squid. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Mudaliars without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Quid Est Squid (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

that content i removed is unrelated to the article Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at List of Mudaliars, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Quid Est Squid (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Mudaliars. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SerialNumber54129 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the photo you added at M. R. Gurusamy Mudaliar and requested deletion of the image at Wikimedia Commons, as there is no visible basis for assuming that the image is in the public domain. At Commons, you listed the photo as being created in 1880, but that's his date of birth and that is clearly not a baby photo. You marked it as being in the public domain because the creator of the photo has been dead for 70 years, but you did not provide the identity of the creator, crediting it to a College. Given that the subject lived to 1958 and that looks like a photo from late in his life, it's quite likely that the photographer was alive for at least some of the last 70 years.

There are ways that we can use photographs that are still under copyright, particularly when they depict a person who is dead and for whom there are no public domain photos available -- see WP:NFCCP. However, even then they would not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is strictly for material that folks are legally allowed to use in general. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply