Hi Karnandus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Dcotos (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Classical languages of India did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Dcotos (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karnandus. I noticed that for the page 'Classical Languages of India' u made a change to my edit. I wanted to point out that the document I attached is the official document published by the Press Information Bureau by the Government of India and the Ministry of Culture. That is the official document and without that document Marathi language's classical status stands void. If you read that document carefully it is clearly mentioned that Maharashtri Prakrit and Marathi have continuity and it is just the name that evolved. There has been continuity throughout. Also the Expertd' committee of the Marathi language were able to prove this point and the Government too has acknowledged it. You put the date as 981 CE but for a classical language to be classical the minimum criterion itself is 1,500 years and there are many Marathi inscriptions before the 9th century and several religious texts(pothis) which are above 1,500 years old that are still read in households by generations of people to date Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest as well as request you to go through this document link once where it us evidenced - https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2024/oct/doc2024104409001.pdf

Even Maharashtrian ancestors would say that the oldest form of Marathi was Prakrut. Which means that this is a spoken tradition/thought that has been passed down since years. Marathi is the modern-day Maharashtri of today just in the same way it is for other languages like with Tamil as well. Just that the name did not evolve. The Tamil spoken 2000 years ago would almost be unintelligble to a modern day contemporary fellow Tamilian. In fact Tamil before 1920 was very different from the Tamil spoken today but Marathi has changed very less and the past 300 years' old Marathi would be very much intelligible to a fellow Maharashtrian. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Karnandus, can you please explain to me why you removed the List of Kings and changed the Map in the Hoysala Kingdom article? You did not provide an explanation in your edit summary.

Please note that such unexplained removals can be seen as WP:VANDAL, so I request you to refrain from doing these things again. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hoysala Kingdom. 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. NXcrypto Message 15:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NXcrypto, Sorry for late response, I found your edit warning to be unfamiliar, I just do things which are related to stopping WP:GS/CASTE & WP:VANDAL and restore the pages to its original form or best revision, my edits are no where found to be WP:VANDAL, although the discussion which the user who was pushing WP:GS/CASTE & WP:VANDAL wasn't constructive, with the way of how the user was discussing, hence didn't consider it to work.

You can check the prevoius version or the edit history, if you thing there was any WP:VANDAL from my side or if it was started by me . Thank you Karnandus (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Western Chalukya Empire and Hoysala Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. AlvaKedak (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, you shouldn't use the same reason for what you were noticed for, you removed the disruptive notice in your talk page and copy pasted the same thing here that what you were noticed for

You're currently under moderation for WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:GS/CASTE, WP:DISRUPTIVE, for unexplained changes, pushing ethnic supremacism.

You add an unrelated information by secretly removing the relevant one, and after your vandalism went through undo you'll say your information was removed and you'll restore it again to make sure the changes you made will be claimed as removed to add it again. Karnandus (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to discuss the issue in the talk page for weeks and you have not responded yet, instead of discussing the issue, you decided to engage in an edit war. You also called me an ethnic supremacist, despite the fact that I am from Karnataka, I speak Kannada and I do not belong to any caste. I never denied a Kannada origin for any of the dynasties in question either. You would have known all this if you actually read what I wrote in the talk pages and edit summaries. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop removing reliably sourced content. The material you removed is supported by references in the article body. Continued disruptive editing may lead to a block. TeaToasst (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False warning

The misinformation (unsourced) was included by the User:Starry Pine, a WP:SOCKPUPPET User, and was removed by me manually and it's not valid to retain the misformation included by the User, check the previous versions of the Page

With no valid reason my edit can't be called as disruptive, since I removed the vandalism from the Page, and restored it to the previous version and you're again retaining the false information edited by the WP:SOCKPUPPET user, which is actually disruptive

No source, no previous version of the Page was removed or vandalised from my edits

The Page also previous experienced such vandalism (of inclusion of Caste/Ethnic supremacism WP:RAJ) I can again call for admin intervention if needed, if you intentionally or by mistake try to retain such false information by the WP:SOCKPUPPET users.

Thank You Karnandus (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Rashtrakuta Empire. Please stop repeated disruptive editing, including the removal of reliably sourced content. Continued disruption may lead to a block. TeaToasst (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the editor who originally added the material is now blocked, that does not make the sourced content invalid. On Wikipedia, content is evaluated based on the reliability of its sources, not on the contributor’s status. sourced material should not be removed without policy based reasons. TeaToasst (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ - Per WP:V, content is evaluated based on reliable sourcing, not the status of the editor who added it. TeaToasst (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact line in the body of the article — "many of the scholars who flourished in their courts and wrote in Sanskrit, Kannada, and a few in Apabhramsha and Prakrit"

: which is taken directly from the cited source and explicitly mentions Prakrit along with Kannada and Sanskrit. Removing this information selectively changes the meaning of the source and results in undue emphasis on a single point of view. I am raising this here to prevent further disruption and to ensure that the article accurately reflects the referenced scholarship. TeaToasst (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed similar patterns of disruptive editing in other articles, including the addition or removal of content in a way that promotes a single point of view or language.

If you still disagree, you may seek wider input through appropriate administrative or noticeboard processes. TeaToasst (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you are again promoting a single language. across multiple pages

Admin reference: this diff shows repeated edits promoting single language See - [1]

Please ensure edits follow Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing policies. TeaToasst (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prakrit was not the "common language" and the source only mentions it as: "and a few in Apabhramsha and Prakrit" which doesn't provides any standard to include that as a "common language" of the Rashtrakuta Empire

The same Page in the Literature mentions "This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era. Court poets and royalty created eminent works in Kannada and Sanskrit that spanned such literary forms as prose, poetry, rhetoric, the Jain epics and the life history of tirthankars. Bilingual writers such as Asaga gained fame, and noted scholars such as the Mahaviracharya wrote on pure mathematics in the court of King Amoghavarsha I."

Means Kannada and Sanskrit were the main languages of the Empire evidenced through their numerous inscriptions, literature and other works in these two languages, if Prakrit was used same as these languages under the Empire, then it must have been included, otherwise not

And there was no source removed in my edit, only false sentences were removed which were added with no summary or explanation and discussion

I found your edit warning to be unfamiliar with no proper reason, any random information can't be included simply as like, with no proper summary, evidence or a source. Karnandus (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if only a few scholars wrote in Apabhramsha and Prakrit, this shows that Prakrit was indeed present and used in the empire. The presence of a language among some scholars is historically significant and should be accurately reflected in the article. TeaToasst (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is not specific, any empire will have so many languages used there but not all will be come under the standard of being a "common language" and not all can be included it as the same, information about them being used by "few" scholars is valid, but since they're not the main, hence can't include them in the main facts of the empire

Since Rashtrakutas used Kannada and Sanskrit mainly in their inscriptions and literature, not Prakrit Karnandus (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Kannada and Sanskrit were predominantly used in inscriptions, the fact that some scholars and poets used Prakrit indicates that the language was present in the empire. Its presence should still be reflected in the article. Wikipedia policy (WP:WEIGHT and WP:V) requires that all reliably sourced information be represented, not just the majority language. While the common spoken language might have been Kannada, scholars also wrote in Sanskrit and Prakrit. TeaToasst (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2], the reason why Prakrit cannot be included as a "common language"

There has been no inclusion of every language used in the empire under the tag "common languages", since they were not mainly used as the "common language" Karnandus (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single-language point of view evident in multiple edits. See diffs-

1. [3]

2. [4]

3. [5]

Admin attention is needed. TeaToasst (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I add anything new? I removed or added the same information which was vandalized by the anonymous or sockpuppet Users. Karnandus (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also please don't forget to check the previous versions of the Page, most of my edits are of restoring the best information which has/had been in the Page. Karnandus (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]