Talk:Reddi Kingdom

message: I would like to point out that the article "Reddy" is a bunch of manufactured lies, falsehoods and a mega exercise in self-glorification. Reddy is a sub-group of Kapus, few of whom became village heads carying the title "Reddy". It is not a caste or varna. In fact, the title 'Reddy' is shared by other social groups of A.P., although not in large numbers. The so-called Reddy dynasty was imaginary. Ruling a few districts for 70 or 80 years does not make one Dynastical. Absolutely ridiculous and fraudulent!! The map covering entire caostal Andhra depicted as 'Reddy dynasty' is another great travesty of historical truth. Please take corrective measues right now. Protect the sanctity of Wiki from history manufacturers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.236.4 (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake History

message: A IP user is constantly modifying cited content. I invite the said user here to engage in discussion and arrive at consensus before changing content. Foodie 377 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Anavota Reddy

message: I have just reverted the article to the last stable version, prior to the edit warring etc of the last couple of months. Please note that sources from the British Raj era are not considered to be reliable for use in the English Wikipedia. I suggest that the warring parties discuss any concerns here rather than continue to disrupt the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: , whenever you get a chance, can you take a look at the "Origins" section? I can't find any mention of "Rashtrakuta" in the Frykenberg source. Further, it appears that a WP:FAKE citation has been added here. The same editor had added Rashtrakuta dynasty earlier. I am also concerned about the casual use of "Reddys" all over the article even though we know it to be highly ambiguous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that there is/was a Reddy-centric group on Orkut or similar who hated me and were trying constantly to manipulate this article in ways that were contrary to our policies. Some probably were socks and, by definition of being a group, some were certainly meatpuppets. There has been a lot of activity of late and it would not surprise me if said people have noticed and tried to take advantage of my absence. If in any doubt, I think it is probably ok to revert to a stable version and ask people to justify their subsequent changes, with quotes etc, here. I'm still not in a position to get too involved in things myself, sorry. One thing has always been certain: modern-day Reddy people want to promote a glorious history etc on Wikipedia and, in common with several other AP communities, it is often massively overstated. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking of entirely nuking the contents and initiating a  de-novo approach.Whoever wrote the Origins section went half by sources and the rest by his own OR.∯WBGconverse 06:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I think the same. I also think the page should be retitled "Kondavidu Reddi kingdom". I read enough stuff about it some time ago, but I didn't take the opportunity to work on the page at the same time. Perhaps I can go back and find the sources again. There is a lot of interesting power play between Vijayanagara, the Reddis and the Gajapatis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  I also recall that the kingdom fissured internally, rather than due to external pressures. Kataya Vema, who was a general rather than a ruler, tried to hold it together, but in vain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

text: , please explain why you made all these spelling changes that got reverted, as well as your undiscussed page move. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source checks