It is for us to advice, to follow it; is for the wise man to do.

– Kayastha Shiromani II, 23:38, 12 October 2013‎

Hi Kayastha Shiromani II. I had to revert the edits you made to Kayastha. You probably should review WP:RS, which explains our rules about what a reliable source is. Ancient religious texts themselves are not very useful--we need academic analyses of what those texts mean. Also, most websites do not meet WP:RS, unless they are published/edited/overseen by experts with a reputation for fact checking. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Authenticity of refs to religious text

I hope, dear sir, you are aware of the high standards of legal profession and the integrity of Indian law system. These refs to religious text were presented mainly as documentary evidence in the following case : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/ A few of them might not be there if added later and I would request you to kindly strike them off. the following are major refs. to ancient Hindu text; kindly peruse the case file. Kayastha have been described in the oldest of the Puranas, Smritis and Shrutis:

• According to the Vedic scriptures, the souls of men after death receive rewards and punishments according to their sins and virtues, and hence it is believed that good and bad deeds of men are not destroyed. The souls of men after death go to Yamapuri which is presided over by the deities called Yamas who keep records of men’s actions and accordingly give them their dues. The principal Yama is called Yamaraja or Dharamaraja, that is, the ruler of Yamapuri or the King of Laws.

• The Yama Samhita which is an extract from the 9th Chapter of Ahilya Kamdhenu, a work of Hindu Law, says that Dharamaraja complained to Lord Brahma about his difficulties in performing his most responsible duties of keeping records of the deeds of men and doing justice to them. Lord Brahma went into meditation. Shree Chitragupta sprang from his body and stood before him bearing an inkpot and a pen. The God Brahma (Creator) said: "Because you are sprung from my body (kaya), therefore you shall be called Kayastha and as you existed in my body unseen I give you the name of Chitragupta." He then assumed charge of Yamapuri. Dharma Sharma married his daughter Irawati to Chitragupta and Manuji, son of Surya (the Sun) married his daughter Sudakhina to him." Chitragupta had eight sons from the former and. four from the latter and these twelve sons became the progenitors of the twelve sub−divisions of the Chitraguptavansi Kayasthas, namely, Mathur, Gaur, Nigam, Ashthana, Kulshretha, Suryadwaja, Balmika Bhatnagar, Srivastava,Ambastha, Saxena and Karana.

• In Padma Purana, Uttar Khanda, it says that Shree Chitragupta had twelve sons by two wives. They were all invested with the sacred thread and were married to Nagakanyas. They were the ancestors of the twelve sub−divisions of the Kayasthas.

• The same legend with some slight difference is given inmost of the Puranas.

• Padma Purana after stating the legend says: "Shree Chitragupta was placed near Dharamaraj to register the good and evil actions of all sentient beings,that he was possessed of supernatural wisdom and became the partaker of sacrifices offered to the gods and fire. It is for this reason that the twice−born always give him oblations from their food. As he sprang from the body of Lord Brahma he was called Kayastha of numerous gotras on the face of the earth."

• In Shristhi Khanda the same Purana says that the sacrificial rites and study of the Kayasthas should be of the Vedas and supporting scriptures and their occupation related to writing.

• Bhavishya Purana states that God, the Creator, gave the name and duties of Chitragupta as follows:

Because you have sprung from my body, therefore, you shall be called Kayastha and shall be famous in the world by the name of Chitragupta. Oh my son, let your residence be always in the region of the god of justice for the purpose of determining the merits and demerits of men.

• Vignana Tantra says the same thing.

• The same is the enjoinment of Lord Brahma to Shree Chitragupta according to Brihat Brahma Khanda. He was named Kayastha having sprung from the body (kaya) of Lord Brahma. He was directed to perform all sanskars and to have writing as his profession.

• Garuda Purana describes the imperial throne of Shree Chitragupta in Yamapuri holding his Court and dispensing justice according to the deeds of men and maintaining their record, in the following words:

(There Dharmaraja, Chitragupta, Sravana and others see all sins and virtues which remain concealed in the bodies of men).

• Similarly, Apastamba Shakha of the Veda quoted in Shabda−Kalpadrum 2nd part, page 228, Shabda 20,

under Kshatriya, states that Kayasthas are Kshatriyas. Chitragupta who reigns in heaven and his son Chaitrarath, who was light of the family, meritorious and of illustrious deads ruled on earth for a long time as King of Chitrakoot near Allahabad. Meru Tantra quoted in Shabda−Kalpadrum under the word ’Kshatriya’ supports the same view.

• The Mahabharata (Anusasan Parva, Chap. 130) recites the teaching of Shree Chitragupta requiring men to do virtuous and charitable acts and performing Yagya, saying that men are rewarded or punished according to their good or bad deeds.

• Turning to the Smritis, Vishnu in Chap. VII, verse 3, says that a document attested by the King is one which is written or prepared by a Kayastha and stamped with the finger prints of the head of the department.

• The words are Virihat Parasara in Chap. X, Sloka 10 says. Kayasthas should be appointed as writers, they being expert in writing.

• Again in Chap. I, Sloka 235, he says that Danda−dhrita the Magistrates and Judges of the Courts should be (dharmagya), persons versed in laws and good administration, Kayasthas, who are versed in the art of writing.

• Vyas says that the writer and the accountant should be that is versed in Mimansa ( Srutis) and Vedas (Adhyayana) as explained by Mitakshara in commenting upon Yajnavalkya, Chap. II, Sloka 2, which says that the King’s Councillors should be versed in the sacred books of Mimansa and Vedas, expert in law, truthful and impartial.

• Similarly, Shukraaiti in Chap. XXXII, Sloka 420, describes Kayasthas as lekhaks, and in Chap. II, versa 178, says that the accountant and lekhak knew the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas.

• Yajnavalkya in Slokas 317 to 320 describes how the edicts of the king should be written, sealed and promulgated. Apararka in his commentary upon these Slokas quotes from Vyas and shows that these edicts should be written by lekhaks, the ministers of war and peace (sandhi vigraha kari), and that they should be promulgated to the gentry and officials among whom Kayasthas have been mentioned.

• Similarly, Vijnanesvara in his Mitakshara commenting upon these Slokas says:

He (King) should cause it to be recorded by that officer of his, who is in charge of war and peace (i.e. by a Kayastha), and not by anybody else.

• As says a Shruti: That officer of his, who is sandhi vigraha kari or the officer in charge of peace and war should be its writer (lekhak).

• Yajnavalkya uses the word "Kayastha" in Slokas 335 36, Chap. I. Commenting upon this, Mitakshara says that Kayasthas are accountants and writers. He makes the word "Kayasthas synonymous with accountants and writers. Similarly, Apararka says that Kayasthas were revenue−collectors (kar−adhi−krita).

• The accountants and scribes constitute one of the ten parts of a judicial proceeding.

• Brihaspati says the same thing, as quoted in Prasara Madhava, Vyavahara Kanda.

• According to the Smritis, the officers of the realm, such as, ministers of peace and war, courtesans and Councillors, Governors and headmen of villages should be men versed in the Sastras, valorous and born of noble family, pure, intelligent, affluent in wealth and of tested virtue and comprehension: Manu, Chap. VII, Verses 54 to 121 Yajnavalkya, Chap. I, Verse 312.

–—--♠

I am sure you did not mean that refs. to religious text are useless when discussing the caste satus of a particular group. You surely must have meant that given these references you need to be sure that they are from ancient texts and not made up. Kayastha Shiromani II ( talk) 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I removed your copy of the above text about Kayasthas from the article Shrivastava, because it is mostly not about the subject of that article. Perhaps a small amount could be reinstated if it is directly relevant, and has citations.

Please also provide citations from reliable sources for the other statements which you added about Srivastavas. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kayastha. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Sitush ( talk) 16:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Our policies regarding reliable sources, verifiability, neutrality, original research etc were explained to you here and at Talk:Kayastha in October 2013. I am dismayed to see that those explanations appear not to have sunk in and that you are again edit warring and adding hopelessly unsuitable content. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs and it is not the place to go off into the realms of (sometimes bizarre) theories without having the consensus of the community.

Caste articles are subject to a specific range of sanctions and your behaviour here is precisely why those sanctions were introduced. Please familiarise yourself with the contents of the notice below, stop using primary sources such as ancient religious texts, and start discussing any changes that you wish to make before actually making them. If you want to campaign for or against the Kayastha community and/or if you want to develop your own theories then please do it somewhere else. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I like your edit on the Kayastha page. Lets form a solidarity group against those who malign the article and its subject matter. I propose the folloing name for the group. United intellectuals' front of Kayastha ethinicty against racist or castist abuse (UIFKEARCA) Khufiya Vibhaag ( talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Its my privilege.

This is your only warning; if you continue your edit-warring at Wikipedia, as you did at Kayastha, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Please do not use threatening language. -- क.श. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. ( talk) 09:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Kayastha shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for 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. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I have been inviting editors for healthy discussion and in fact have created a topic for this, but it seems no one wants to discuss anything and just keep on reverting and edit warring. I am the one initiating discussion time and again and inviting people to 'come discuss' but my invitation are being ignore by my learned friends.-- का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. ( talk) 10:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I am reverted and highlighted the issue on the talk and in the revert, I had said "see talk", but you reverted again. You were also informed about WP:BRD, which you did not respect.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You are most welcome and I have replied to that thread.-- का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. ( talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. A defense of "stable version" is not a valid reason for repeatedly reverting multiple editors. And reverting after an AN3 notice has been filed gives the appearance of bad faith. I suggest you use the 36 hours block to figure out how to seek consensus on Wikipedia. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that will not give me ample time for introspection, I demand for a few more hours? -- + का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second.+ ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply