User talk:Ashley thomas80/Archive 1

1125:

India" is a frank one. Don't link STC issue with quality issue of the article. I just tried to correct the existing info on STCs, not to paste any propaganda points there. If so, I could have tried to mention that STCs were considered equivalent to brahmins, practiced untouchability against Nairs and other castes etc with sufficient support from sources. But my point is the integration of STCs with Hindu Caste System. You have to be firm with your point; in one talk page you opine that Caste was basically a Hindu thing and others were outside it. In another talk page, you argues that Non-Hindus also follow caste system. Perhaps your point is that Non-Hindus had a caste system, isolated from the Hindu System. But the sources like Dunken Forrester and Coward have already been cited against this view. Wiki should house all the significant view points, not mine or your's alone. Your concern over "over-weight" to STC subject in a Hindu-Subject is caused by your scrambling only; I had to expand a single sentence to many to clarify your tags. Now you have to clarify the quantum of weight that you considered due.

1448:

before submitting, or work on it off Wiki first then bring it here. That being said, the truth is that you can't fix copyright violations that way anyway. That is, you can't take text someone already wrote and then edit it (by changing words or grammar here and there). Instead, you need to completely rewrite the info, summarizing the key points, from the ground up. The line between "summary", "close paraphrasing", "plagiarism", and "copyright violation" is very difficult to negotiate, but in my experience (as both a WP editor and an English teacher) is that the worst approach is to start with a copy of the text and then make incremental changes. Instead, read the entire text, figure out what the important information is, then write that in your own words. Of course, your final product still has to match the information in the original, but it needs to have entirely novel phrasing. Second, note that though I protected

1029:: "The features/hierarchy/etc from Ghurye you mention, is where Ghurye is a WP:PRIMARY source; he uses census reports of colonial era (page 29-31, later chapters) to propose his theory. Yes, Ghurye is in parts, a secondary source." Weasling and peacocking: I believe, there is some comprehension issue; totally unrelated while we use "Fuller believes". The issue only raises when we use "It is believed" or like that. Regarding "Myth": I really appreciate your contributions in STC, and also looking forward to you for more NPOV clean-up action. Actually, I restrained myself from making some changes which have been made by you now, as my efforts could have been misinterpreted as POV by some other contributers. Still, I'm studying NPOV aspect of word "myth", and would talk further after verifying with sources. -- 1761:.I added the 1st source(ie NSC Statistics) in order to give the reader at least some data on the statistics of STCs, since not much statistical info was not ncluded in the article at that time. NSC stat states "The Christian population in this state of Kerala is approximately 6.2 million which is around 20 % of the State population. According to a rough estimate, among them the vast majority (65-75 %) belongs to the Syrian Christian community spread across different Christian sects..." This info was useful to verify the statement, and hence I added it. Moreover, from some offline sources, I confirmed that the STC popn is more or less 12 per cent. In the second case, it is true that I used a circular reference, trusting the quality of that article. However, for a second verification, I went to 2123:, and happy to say that the quality of articles which I really contributed have increased many fold with such disputes, activism and policing only. Similarly my knowledge in WP:policies also has increased to great extend and I'm thankful to you too. I would have much more respected your vigorous activities that I'll never be able to match myself due to my selfish love of my personal life and professional engagements, if your POV was bit more balanced. Some more pointers to a few article those you involve: 3385: 3276: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3185: 3149: 3122: 3718:

assigning the reason as "poor phrasing" and on a later stage as "copyvio". I'm sorry that I assumed a personal grudge or some sort of communal issue with you and my responses were not decent. OK, let the bygones be bygones. My request to you is not to deal with new-editors aggressively; (1)before reverting please request them to self revert citing the reason (2)before pasting warnings in talk-page, just convey the matter in a soft tone.<od: -->

3777: 3751: 1562: 1409: 1214: 660: 4992: 31: 2115:

in Kerala, constituting 12 per cent of the population". I also know that the statement is true. The ref1-NSC stat- would have given the reader to assess the reliability of the statement with some +/- calibration. Ref2 - grabbed from 1968 Survey - Here, I made a mistake by posting the source without verifying it. But, I presumed that the source contains full survey report. That presumption went wrong, and now got accused of lying by an

787:. Those responses were to comments made as long ago as July 2010. Is there really any benefit in continuing something that has lain dormant for as long as this? I think that you would be better starting a new thread for such things as, among other issues, the chances are not particularly great that the people who originated those old discussions are still around. You could always refer to the earlier discussion in your new one. - 610: 1663:

version, it mentioned that STCs are the largest forward caste. Since, Nairs also constitute 12 per cent, I corrected to current form, which is factually correct. The same stat is available in the internal link given with SOCIO ECONOMIC SURVEY 1968, and I just copied the same source from that wiki page. First, you correct your prejudiced attitude, then only our talks could give any fruitful results. -Ashley

1776:, which has not yet been inserted with any template related to POV or unreliability etc. You also found to be involved in editing this article. If you had any doubts on it's reliability, why don't you challenge it there. That's why I told you that your activism has some POV issue. Of cource, my activity is limited to some areas, but I'm not an "activist against any section, religion or caste". -- 532: 1129:

also be helpful. The name Caste was first used by Portuguese to specify the system of stratification in India; there is no point in trying to disown it and to generalize it as a birth-related social stratification which is basically an advanced subject. If the article deals this advanced subject in a dedicated section, it would be fine. Lot more, but limited time. --

2351: 2341: 427: 629:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 3418:

5.1 (atleast for chillu chars). Linux Upstream packages are also updated recently and probably available through next distribution releases or by updates. Untill then using modified fonts containing new Characters (and removing extensions like fix-ml) is the perfect solution. You can use any of the updated fonts for Malayalam

1088:. Just because sometimes you do not get your own way, does not mean that those who thought otherwise have an agenda - political or otherwise - or that they were acting in bad faith. The fact is that a lot of what you say in discussions has some merit but you are not getting to grips with issues such as 3889:

Inarzan and Sitush, I have no grief in going bald if all others share the baldness. I see a few merits in the montages while a few others see a few demerits in it; basically a POV issue. I'm waiting for external inputs and if they are also in the same line, I've no issue in following it. Since we are

3717:

Sitush, I think 2 or more time I conveyed you that I respect your experience and knowledge in policies. Frankly, I lost the good faith when you 'seemed' manipulating in the discussions @ Caste system in Kerala/India and became more severe when you fully reverted my contributions in Nambudiri with 1st

3242:

article? (If you had created it on the Commons, it probably would have worked.) Is it simply a problem of copying from browser address bar instead of rendered text? Incidentally the two "this page" links above don't work (it's that pesky colon business again). When corrected they become identical and

2074:

I am not messing with this issue any further here: you know that you are lacking in incompetence regarding policies etc, I've fixed an article that you could have tried to fix yourself, and you are scattering red herrings all over the place. Just be aware that I will continue to keep a very close eye

1807:

is a full source (not a "limited preview") and it does not appear to support the statement. Therefore, it is a fake reference, inserted by you without you having even read the thing. Misunderstanding a source is different from misrepresenting one, and in this instance it looks like you misrepresented

1277:

You have just reinstated some of the copyvios. Now stop it, please. You are trying to take me on at various articles: this would be ok if you managed to follow our policies and guidelines etc but it is obvious that you lack the experience. Keep doing the good stuff that you do but, please, if you are

989:

Cuchullain, while describing some sensitive issues, Fuller starts as 'I believe' etc. So, I think, we should be carefull to quote his personal opinions as such. Anyway, I don't have any doubt over the reliability of this source. As you suggest, if other wp:rs contradicts Fuller's personal view, let's

3957:

I've never doubted it. But we still have problems agreeing on terminology! It's just the way it is, and some of it seems likely to be related to cultural differences (the "communal" word, for example).. Either someone else will suggest changes or it will progress in its current form. I am aware that

3909:

I think it best to wait for Ashley's RfC to be completed. Everything in the prior discussion applies generally to any collection of images of people, whether they are in montage form or whether they do or do not belong to a caste. Sitush, re your comment in that RfC, you can always add a question or

3659:

it to "Thiruvanathaputam" without any additional citation. Probably, the user made an attempt to promote his native place. Anyway, I'll consult an administrator to see if my understanding is wrong. Thank you for your guidance. However, it was better to avoid a reference to Sitush's case, as it won't

2114:

it now? Who is lying now? So, while you tagged that table instead of deleting, you remarked that "move & cite request (I know that this is correct but it does need sourcing))". I also rendered a similar sympathy to a genuine statement like "Syrian Christians are one of the largest forward castes

1104:

You have made several assumptions of bad faith etc recently, along the lines of the one that I have referred to above. Should it happen again any time soon then I will be issuing a more formal warning. You are dealing with some experienced editors for whom such comments are wateIr off a duck's back,

1092:

and there really does seem at times to be a problem with comprehension. I have no idea whether or not English is your first language but you certainly seem to be very capable in both reading and writing it when it suits, so perhaps you are just losing things in the heat of the moment. If that is the

997:

regarding how things are worded. My approach is that quotes should always include an inline attribution of whom is being quoted, and that we should be judicious in how we attribute any other statements. However, this does not mean that we splatter articles with sentences containing "X believes" etc,

965:

Ashley, Sitush pointed out this discussion to me. After looking at it, it's clear this is a reliable secondary source and perfectly acceptable to use at Knowledge. If we had some other academic taking issue with the findings in another reliable source that would be one thing, but otherwise it's fine

911:

An academic cannot breach our OR policies. That is nonsense. He does fieldwork, it is peer reviewed etc and then becomes a secondary source that we can use. Blimey, if we start with the approach that X has done original research and therefore cannot be used as a source, we'll have no sources at all.

383:

I agree with the interpretation given to Mar Thoma Sleeba is arbitrary, it is contentious. It is stupid to compare this Cross with Menorah. This does not agree with what is given in the Torah and the Bible. (as pointed out by User:Ashleypt). No historian will support this view. From Jewish sources,

3559:

verse) for the second part "there is a late Rigvedic reference invoking forefathers "both cremated (agnidagdhá-) and uncremated (ánagnidagdha-)". You need to explain further in your edit summaries why cn tags are still required in such lines. I see you have also added other new tags this time which

1372:

and lay off the accusations of bad faith/etiquette etc. Like I said, the problem here is your lack of knowledge regarding policy. Now, I can work with you to improve that or you can keep fighting me. So far, you are mostly doing the latter, and across more than just this one article. You are laying

1128:

Coming straight to quality issue of the article (Caste Sys in India); the article looks like a research paper which is of meager value to an uninformed reader of the subject. Before entering the history, we need to explain the characteristics of the System. A brief explanation of Varna System would

1046:

I disagree with Apostle, for the reasons set out in my message above at 14:24 26 April. Re: weasel etc, I did say "might be construed" rather than "is" - it is an awkward one, and when things are awkward then it is often best to avoid them if possible. I really would take "myth" to the article talk

3417:

page is correct there. But copying titles containing converted chillu characters to link in any other MediaWiki wikies which has no normalisation, will naturally break linking (because encodings are different). New OSs like WinVista, Win7, new Mac releases, iOS4 etc has perfect support for Unicode

1456:

an endorsement of the most recent version. You now need to go to the article's talk page and discuss the issues between you and Sitush. He has clearly been trying to talk to you here, but I don't really see that you've been doing that, except to place some warnings on his talk page that don't even

1154:

My message here was not related to the articles but rather your comments on talk pages. You are not assuming good faith and you are teetering on the edge of personal attacks. I am not getting involved in a discussion of articles here: your approach to dialogue, which you spread in a chaotic manner

265:

Dear Ashleypt, I have not reverted anything of your edits. I have only added some of the passages which were referenced. Please, this is not revert. This is not edit war. I have not reverted anything that you edited. Just added some statements with citations from peer reviewed journals. I have not

3890:

dealing the STC's as an ethnic group and as an empirical caste, we can't go back as you have suggested. Hello Sitush, is it simply my claim or the studies of Forrester, Fuller, Amaldass, Susan Bayly etc????? Our discussions used to slip into heated arguements due to such mischievous comments only

1662:

well, you were not this much passionate to remove unsourced info in your pet pages like, Caste System in Kerala. Your activism is just against the passages related to Christianity. That's how, the good faith has been lost among us. In STC, 12 per cent stat was not introduced by me. In the earlier

1533:

Well, one might say that there is a common problem, but it's the one identified by Sitush 2 sections down--you appear to be using sources in a disturbing way. How were you able to cite things before actually getting them from the Resource Exchange? That makes it look like you have a preconception

1124:

Hello Sitush, I used to neglect threats and provocations, weather it's coming straight or in veiled form. I have limited time to spend with Wiki. While dealing the issues on a fly, sometimes, I have lost things in between. But the feed-back that I have provided for the article on "Caste System in

348:

I agree that the interpretation of the Nasrani symbol with the Jewish menorah is contentious. I shall modify it to remove the pov. However I should add that even the interpretation of the Nasrani symbol as christianity coming to land of Buddha is very contentious and a very recent one and equally

1447:

Two notes, as the protecting admin. First, as Sitush describes above, copyright violations cannot appear in Knowledge for any length of time--that is, you cannot add a copyright violation, then say that you're going to fix it in future edits. You need to do all of the "fixing" in the edit window

3677:

Why would my "case" not help to resolve anything? Abhishek appears to be pointing out to you that there are numerous problems with your understanding, as indeed there are. There are even instances where you have been wikilawyering from an untenable position because of this (notably, on issues

389:

Mentioning Buddhism means coming to the real point. The base of this cross is a Lotus, a sign of Buddhism and not that of a Christian. The inscriptions are in Pahlawi language (Persian) not a language of St. Thomas Christians. Most probably, a cross with a dove, and inscriptions in a Persian

1709:

Please do not forget, that this is part of what seems to be a general tendency towards sloppy editing: my raising the issue here is a consequence of your contributions as a whole, rather than just this single statement. If it were the latter then I would have dealt with it solely at

1024:

Not necessarily; Secondary sources should normally be supported by primary sources. If some passages in a secondary source are not supported sufficienty, those are just primary information, especially when it is not shared by others. Pls observe the comment from ApostleVoncolorado

3678:

relating to consensus). Perhaps it might help if when you feel the urge to cite a policy/guideline, you first check the relevant policy/guideline article to ensure that your citation will be appropriate. You are an intelligent person and will soon pick things up if you do that. -

1691:

If you think that my "activism" is just against passages relating to Christianity then I strongly suggest that you spend some time working through my 50- or 60,000 contributions. That is quite an allegation to make. Has it not crossed your mind that your perception is because

228:

I have changed Aryan-Brahmin, Dravidian, Jains etc as local people and Jews and Arabs as West Asian semitic. I have not mentioned any particular community. I have used broad terms that encompasses these peoples. I have not been partisan. The accusation is fallacious. thanks

4527:

Hi Wavelength, thank you. The tool, "transcluded changes", is new to me and hopefully, it will enable me to increase my coverage. I think, your message has an inference: an advice for me to involve in more articles. Yes, it was a much needed trigger and I promise "I will".

1931:

The early quote was my reply to your comment that "Nothing is clear". What do you want to clarify more from that source? Regarding tagging of WP article: this article has a table of 1968 pop stat, which uses the the same JSTOR source(Sivanandan) that we discussed above.

210:

I have wikified some of the passages that were added in the light of the dispute resolution responses. This is not edit war. I just wanted to let you know that. Much of what you wrote is there and I have wikified passages as per neutrality of dispute resolution. thanks

157:. I'm not vandalizing the article or trying to be critical of the community. It's simply that the article is not in a good shape according to the Knowledge guidelines. Keeping the information relevant and sourcing it rigorously is important to make the page a 3179:

That's great! Actually, I copy-pasted the malayalam script, but failed repeatedly. Every time, it worked in the 1st preview and failed in the second preview or on save. Suspecting my wp:editor(Provelt), I de-activated it, but no escape, every time it went to

4337:

Thank you for inviting me to review the article. I have only managed to read two of many many articles that focus on this aspect of the state of Kerala. From the little I know, I feel I am neither adequately informed nor reasonably qualified to comment yet.

1008:

Regarding your "myth" query, that is really one that you should ask on the relevant talk page. But my response would be "yes, it does", and it goes on to explain that there is more than one theory. Actually, I would like to expand on that in the article. -

323:. Whatever you choose, you can't simply keep reverting without discussing the article contents at all. Although my role at the DRN is usually a peaceful one, if the edit warring on this page continues for much longer, I am thinking of reporting you both to 1703:

Since I think that you now have the source, do you agree that it fails to mention the figure or, indeed, the forward caste issue at all? If you do, then we remove the statement again and you should do the same at which ever article it is where you found

1642:

Mistakes will happen but I am becoming very concerned about your methods and this is one of the reasons why I am having to check pretty much every source that you cite. Sorry about this, but there is a need for care. Sloppy editing, such as I fixed in

1457:

make sense. If you do not engage in discussions, and instead return to reverting on that article after the protection expires, instead of protection, next time an admin will just block you instead. Knowledge works by collaboration, not by fighting.

1916:

What is not fair? Where? I am afraid that your comment makes no sense at all to me, except in so far as it seems to answer neither my query regarding the JSTOR item that you link to nor with regard to why you think the WP article needs tagging. -

2071:

issues, you claimed that you had copy/pasted from that article but it is clear that you just grabbed at a source, without reading it and despite it not being used for the purpose to which you then applied it. Want me to put it plainly? OK, you

4580:

I did not intend to make that implication: a piece of advice for you to be involved in more articles. I provided those links for you to use if you have the desire to do so. You do not need to promise me that you will be involved in more

1683:

Even if you had a source saying that the Nairs constitute 12%, and another source saying that the STCs are the largest forward caste, you could not add the two together to make a statement that STCs = 12% because that would breach our

1968:

Sorry, I disagree with you in the abstract case for such a simple matter. That we could clarify with someone else. You were quick to see the tables in WP article, but not careful. Read it once more: the 1st table is pop stat of 1968.

3409:

This is an issue of dual encoding. Fix-ml extension mentioned by AshLey converts new chillu character encodings to old de-facto standard in favour of operating systems, which has no new fonts (WinXP, and Linux distributions). Since

1308:

acceptable. Go work on it offline. And please bear in mind that if you want to change what is valid, sourced information then you are now going to have to discuss it beforehand. That content has been unchallenged for a long time at

1949:

We do not work off abstracts. You'll have to read the entire JSTOR article, and hope that it mentions the 12% figure etc also. As for the Knowledge article, it is clear that you have misunderstood it: the table that relates to the

369:

Glad to see and read the discussion on this topic, “Nazrani Symbol” and “St. Thomas Cross.” It seems that this name Cruz de Sam Thome (St.Thomas Cross) was first mentioned by Antonio Gouvea in the Sixteenth century in his book

3226:(2)? Now in my browsers name (2) appears with three of the characters replaced with little rectangles indicating that my screen fonts don't know about those codes - but despite that (2) works and (1) does not. I have restored 2856: 2149:-In STC you were quick to add the qualifier "Myth" with the tradition of St.Thomas. But, you have still not undertook any action regarding the misrepresentation of Parasurama Myth as a fact which we have already discussed in 3274:

of the article, Kerala. Here I didn't make any changes to these file-names voluntarily, but on 'saving the edit' these file-names also got affected, though I'm unable to see any difference in the file-names.The issue with

3874:

effectively a caste and should be treated as one here. Furthermore, the discussion quite clearly refers to communities, not merely castes. I suggest that you don't do anything silly based on yet more wikilawyering. -

2159:, you swiftly removed it citing the reason as "Poorly phrased and improper citation". But when I protested you suddenly changed your stand to "copyvio". These types of manipulations will surely spoil your image. -- 1736:

part of the system because they are Christian rather than Hindu, but in practical terms they may be considered to be a part of it. He goes on to use the word "empirically" etc. These nuances can be significant. -

1351:, and you jumped the gun to revert it without any talk. I requested for talk, but you again started editing the article with no signs of discussion. You have to learn basic etiquette before doing anything more. -- 1494:. The discussion on his page related not to content but to policy matters, ie: the protection of the article and your copyright violations etc. Content issues are always best sorted out on article talk pages. - 2408: 1898:

Well, not a fair game. Did you see this "Only the Syrian Christians(...) are put in the category of "forward" community. This official categorization..." To verify such a simple thing, we don't need to go in

2007:

Argh! Abstracts are the same as snippet views, which you have already been told are not acceptable because they lack context. Furthermore, the abstract does not support the 12% figure that you had added at

3143:

Please learn the colon trick to refer to an image rather than use it. If you cannot type the script (is it Malayam?), you can at least use copy and paste. I am not surprised that you cannot see a link:

3719:

I'm leaving all the personal issues behind (not because you called me intelligent, but I found in other articles that your approach is equitable there too), and let's have a fresh start. With regards -

3238:

created. So explain this to me - if you were able to copy and paste വേഴാമ്പല്‍-ബന്നാര്‍ക്കട്ട-പാര്‍ക്ക് into that redirect, why were you not able to copy and paste it into an image declaration in the

826:

Hi, you really do seem to be on a mission to mention Syrian Christians in as many tangential articles as possible. Are you confident that you do not have a conflict of interest? Your latest edit, at

4923:

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Knowledge editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out

3000:. It's understanding of the language is rather poor right now, but a small set of suggested fixes for red links on the Malayalam language Knowledge are there in case they are of interest to you. 4419:

I have seen the talk, that page is in my watchlist. I'll keep watching the discussion. It is surprising that people are spending so much time on these issues rather than improving the article! --

2292:

harm reader's understanding of the topic. Another editor agreed and I didn't find your arguments addressed this issue sufficiently to keep the image. I can see also now that there are at least

4643:

The support and admonishments which I got from many experienced Wikipedians have corrected my ways, increased my confidence level, and, more surprisingly, influenced my POV, even in real life.

1516:

Hi Sitush, Our issues are not limited to this single article. If we discuss the issues in a common forum(not necessarily in a user talk page), I think, it would be easier to find an outlet. --

4640:

The support and admonishments that I got from many experienced Wikipedians have corrected my ways, increased my confidence level, and, more surprisingly, influenced my POV, even in real life.

990:

have a relook on this issue. Another case: In the starting sentence of the early history of STC, Sitush has inserted a word 'myth'. Does the source use the same word in that context ?-Ashley

3555:

has a citation for the part "The Hindu rites of cremation are seen since the Rigvedic period; while they are attested from early times in the Cemetery H culture" and gives a primary source (

3459:, where all should hopefully become clear. Although I am expecting to be given short shrift for posting the request there :( Nothing to panic about: any discussion should probably remain at 1006:. We have a citation system that can adequately deal with, say, 95 per cent of the matter. Where the "X believes" construct really comes in is when X says A and another person, Y, says B. 4069:

interesting. The length to which what appears to me filibustering is happening to avoid “Nairs were historically enlisted in military” in the article lead-sentence is very disturbing. VS

3270:

Now, both (1) and (2) do work for me, and seem identical in my browser - both have 3 red rectangles(zero width joiner). I think, the issue is related to the browser and font. Please see

2038:

Actually, no. the table may refer to population: the preceding text is confusing. My apologies. However, I still do not see why it needs to be tagged, except perhaps for copyediting. -

1799:

Ashley, you inserted two different sources and neither of them supported the statement. Period. The source that you have now got via RX is the same one that you cited - an article from

1600:

I realise that you must think that I am hounding you but, in fact, I am merely trying to sort out problems with your edits. I've no idea exactly what is going on with your sourcing but

1568: 1561: 1415: 1408: 874: 2398: 1768:

Yes, now I have the source, but only 7 pages. With this limited preview, how could I or anybody else say that the source doesn't contain this data. Let me prove it: If you analyse

1728:

As another example, you originally quoted Fuller at the head of the section on Caste at STC but you crucially omitted Fuller's preamble and footnote, where he states that they may

4920:

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

3414: 3332: 2780: 4708:

Yes, got an idea of relative and demonstrative pronouns; thank you Wavelength. Another doubt that has hindered my English writings is the usage "comma" in the following context:

390:

language, is a Manchæeism cross. The burning torch and the dove both represent Paraclete. “Mani sought to pose as Christ and proclaimed himself the Paraclete.” (ref: Eusebius.

3790: 3768: 2790: 1575: 1422: 1227: 947:

a secondary source, and a reliable academic at that. If there are other opinions then they should be shown, with due weight etc, but unless you wish to assert that Fuller is a

673: 4637:

According to my understanding, both of the following versions are correct. (However, please note that distinguishing "that" and "which" is one area where experts disagree.)

2373: 4598:

No, it was, actually, a desired trigger for me, since I found myself very much improved, with my increased number of activities in Knowledge. The support and admonishments

3926:

I thought about doing that but there is little point: Ashley and I have had big problems agreeing on a single word before now. Best that someone else takes a look at it. -

4257: 1097:- there is rarely any need to rush to add or delete content from articles, aside from in situations where there are copyright violations or violations of policies such as 312: 554:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the

4261: 2679: 4757:

Sir, I know that I'm burdening you. So, next doubt will be raised only after a few days leisure time, if no urgent casualties are met while editing WP. With regards :)

830:, specifically says that they were not in the system ... so why are you mentioning them at all? It seems daft to me. Peru is not in Europe but we don't say that in the 3456: 3196:. Where could be the issue? Your reply would be helpful to update my knowledge. I doubt, the redirect should not have been created in wikipedia, but in commons???-- 2307: 743: 2861: 2368: 4605:

I got from many experienced Wikipedians, have corrected my ways, increased my confidence-level and more surprisingly, influenced my POV, even in the real-life.

4096:

because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the

2388: 739: 2990: 1700:

that are proving to be problematic & in need of some checking. In this particular instance, you effectively appear to have twice entered a fake reference.

4101: 2689: 2383: 2016:

journal article concerns. My question was, why do you think that it needs tagging? Are you saying that the 1968 landholdings table data is not shown in the

1278:

going to challenge me regarding policy issues then ensure that you have a reasonable knowledge of them before doing so, ie: walk before you run. Your query

2329: 1772:

article authored by EMS, you could conclude that the books of Sivanandan categorizes STCs as Forward Caste. We can't blindly disbelieve a source in this

2378: 1155:

across numerous pages and numerous sections within those pages, is already causing me enough problems and I have no desire to give you another outlet. -

1377:

for breaching some major policy areas, especially since you have already been notified of the sanctions that are in place for articles such as these. -

315:

on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I still think that would be the best idea; if you don't want to do this, though, you can try another form of

3287:. This software patch is automatically converting some the Malayalam characters in the file-name to Atomic Chillu Characters for better readability. -- 4501: 2508: 753: 4720:

Both statements are grammatically correct, although "on the school team" is also correct for statement #1. For statement #2, please see the article "

1193:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

4031: 4019: 2866: 2826: 2821: 2816: 2811: 2249: 2979: 2870: 2795: 2775: 2765: 2571: 2531: 1220: 1213: 1188: 135:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sorry, I am a bit late but welcome all the same. --

124: 1647:, is usually quite easy to spot and resolve but citation errors are both more critical and often more difficult to spot. Someone has to do it. - 1810:

I am afraid you appear to be going backwards at the moment, and I really would advise that you read in full some of our basic policies, such as

2566: 2455: 2445: 1534:

about what is true, then you're just guessing/hoping that there is a source to support it. Or is there some other explanation? Please explain.

641: 84:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

4549:

You are welcome. By the word "inference", you probably meant "implication". Even many people whose first language is English confuse those

3230:

it does not work if you use it to add an image to an article - probably the mix of redirect and Commons is too much for the software. But it

2846: 2770: 749: 4962:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4890:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4457:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4389:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4305:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4226:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4183:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4140:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4035:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3514:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3058:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4958: 4946: 2851: 2836: 2626: 2591: 2526: 2498: 1688:

rule. It is, for example, possible that the two sources use different data sets, different intepretations or even different sample times.

3284: 2694: 2651: 2460: 2450: 2423: 1317:

with an attribution. I probably wrote the original anyway, and I think that you will find that it comes from an even earlier version at

585: 1866:

Nothing is clear from that abstract, nor can I recall seeing it previously. Anyway, I presume that you have read the entire article? -

1846: 1769: 307:

is a bright-line rule, it is not a lower limit - slow edit warring can also result in a block. I recommended that you take this to the

303:. You really need to talk out the changes on the talk page before you revert, otherwise it might result in you being blocked. Although 4967: 4895: 4462: 4394: 4310: 4301: 4289: 4231: 4188: 4145: 4040: 3519: 3063: 2874: 2785: 2546: 4774:

The phrase "Suggested article" (not the entire sentence) is a false title. It is best to avoid false titles in Knowledge (except in

4837:. I found you replying some queries there, a selfless service to the open world. Thanks a lot for your kind guidance and help, sir. 4834: 4807: 2841: 2831: 2709: 2704: 2661: 2656: 2596: 2413: 1757:

Your remark, "two fake sources", is uncalled for. The statement was not sourced and factually incorrect When I corrected like this :

993:

Pretty much all secondary sources are "beliefs": it is they who do the conjecturing, the research etc and there is also an academic

708: 571: 4506: 3335:

is done by me not the browser! It shows you the proper way to do interwiki links. If you need further help, I suggest you contact

2052:

Finally you got it, Thanks. Why need tagging? Why doesn't it meet the same criterion that you took to delete the STC=12% passage?

3560:

seem alright. But as and when your cn tag is deleted with a reason, please give your own reasons for keeping them to resolve the

2684: 2641: 973: 692: 449: 248:

You are vandalising the syrian malabar nasrani page by inserting texts into references and removing citations. Please stop this.

4093: 3870:

If you try that line you will find yourself having problems, in part because Ashley has for many weeks been claiming that STCs

2737: 2732: 2631: 2606: 2581: 2576: 2322: 2209:. It is a highly contentious article at the moment and you lack the experience if it heats up. Take a look at the talk page. - 158: 926:

No, we have to follow wiki policies. But his opinions could be quoted with sufficient balance and secondary source support. --

746:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4963: 4891: 4458: 4390: 4306: 4227: 4184: 4141: 4074: 4036: 3515: 3374: 3350: 3322: 3258: 3167: 3103: 3059: 2616: 2483: 2478: 1680:

A diff for what the STC article said re: them being the largest forward caste might be handy, as I assume that it was sourced

566: 3283:

also has the same problem. Yes, this issue started after installing an add-on to my Google-chrome following the guidance of

127:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

4953: 4881: 4448: 4380: 4296: 4217: 4174: 4131: 4026: 3505: 3049: 2897: 2727: 2646: 2611: 2601: 2561: 2556: 2493: 2488: 1473: 435: 108: 3311:! I assume you did not intentionally change my message. I am reversing that diff by hand with this edit - using Opera. — 685:

Ashley, please do remember to log in when making edits. It allows others to follow who's saying and doing what. Thanks,--

4491: 4343: 2986: 2742: 2636: 2621: 2586: 1711: 1617: 1616:

the statement an hour or so later, using a different source. I raised some points about that second source (Sivanandan)

1184: 711:? The style, formatting and English is problematic, but it looks as if it contains some valuable content. Can you help? 439: 93: 81: 4828: 4803: 4353:

Oh, I was confident of your expertise in the subject. Anyway, I hope, you would one day improve this article. Cheers!!!

4097: 4089: 1954:

article is with regard to landholdings; the table that relates to population figures is referring to 1931, not 1968. -

4496: 3145: 3118: 2747: 2699: 2541: 2536: 2503: 2440: 2360: 2150: 1636: 803: 784: 625:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1849:

link I already given, it's clear that the original survey contains the forward caste categorization and much more. --

3339:

or one of the other editors of the To Read in Malayam help page. And of course you could try a different browser. —

3331:

This edit is being done using my version of Google Chrome to see if it does any changes. The change of the link to

2012:. As far as the Knowledge article is concerned, I've already said that the table relates to 1968, which is what the 4999: 3757: 3750: 3743: 3569: 2315: 630: 38: 3700:

Abhishek, Yes, it's a mistake from me to apply COI inappropriately. Thank you for prompt corrective intervention.

5008: 4847: 4767: 4618: 4538: 4363: 4070: 3950: 3900: 3831: 3729: 3710: 3670: 3630:

and many other related policies so that you have a clear understanding and give the right reason in your revert.

3552: 3541: 3488: 3398: 3297: 3206: 3135: 3030: 2966: 2551: 2280:

While I am sure you think the image should be kept, all non-free images hosted on Knowledge must meet all of the

2234: 2169: 1979: 1942: 1909: 1859: 1786: 1526: 1361: 1139: 1039: 936: 904: 517: 491: 407: 113: 47: 17: 3413:

is active in Malayalam Wiki projects, ie, whatever the encoding - it goes to database as new version, ml.wiki's

3280: 1673:- and therefore it matters not a jot what the internal link says. You need to check your cited sources yourself 175:

Please do not add irrelevant text to articles. Content has to be relevant to the article and documented through

4751:. Can we use such phrases in WP? The correct form may be a non-restrictive one such as "The suggested article, 4385: 4373: 4136: 4124: 2119:

person. Now, you also vouch that the full survey report contains the popn stat - What an irony! I welcome your

1823: 3153: 3089: 2110:

The Table(1968 pop) cited in the Ethnics Groups article: Supported by which source? If supported, why did you

3384:

Thank you RHaworth. I try this edit with IE and with that I'm able to copy-paste the correct file-name. See:

1180: 621: 570:

may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a

555: 539: 4656: 4339: 4112: 3845: 3510: 3498: 3423: 2056: 2009: 1881: 1605: 731: 716: 593: 190: 4688: 4684: 2931: 1234:

Please log in to make comments, otherwise we don't know you had anything to do with uploading the image.

4331: 4222: 4210: 4179: 4167: 2997: 2146: 1310: 649: 509: 463: 431: 419: 375: 292: 285: 266:

added all the statements. I have not added passages without citations from peer reviewed journals. thanks

88: 4886: 4874: 4649: 4487:

You may be interested in these four pages: one page related to Kerala and three pages related to India.

4273: 3916: 3565: 2134: 2023:

You seem to be developing a tendency to fudge issues and dodge questions: it does not help your case. -

827: 577:

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is

483: 354: 329: 271: 253: 234: 216: 120: 2296:

free images of the cross on Wikimedia's Commons site - either of which could be used in the article -

4840: 4818: 4760: 4732: 4716:

I think that 1 is OK while I'm really confused with 2. Could you please enlighten me in this matter?

4699: 4611: 4589: 4531: 4517: 4356: 3943: 3893: 3824: 3783: 3776: 3722: 3703: 3663: 3481: 3391: 3290: 3199: 3128: 3023: 2959: 2889: 2403: 2227: 2162: 1972: 1935: 1902: 1852: 1779: 1519: 1481: 1354: 1132: 1032: 970: 929: 897: 689: 666: 659: 551: 513: 487: 446: 403: 150: 2063:

supported by the sources that you added. The statement that was cited in the Ethnics Groups article

4426: 4267: 3633: 3008: 2300: 1685: 1239: 1198: 128: 4607:(I think, "those" without a comma is correct, as the above case is a restrictive one. Am I right?) 3992: 4924: 4105: 3460: 3368: 3360: 3344: 3316: 3252: 3161: 3097: 2947: 2088: 1765:. At the maximum, you could accuse me of using a circular source, but not a fake source for sure. 1670: 1620:, including that I could not find where it supported the statement. You responded to that thread 1539: 1462: 1105:

but such comments set a bad example and they engender an atmosphere of non-cooperation, which is

1094: 712: 589: 438:

with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going

184: 180: 166: 103: 154: 3655:". The sources clearly indicate that Kochi ranks 1st in the tourist arrival, but the ip-editor 4977: 4928: 4905: 4472: 4404: 4320: 4241: 4198: 4155: 4050: 4005: 3858: 3529: 3419: 3073: 1369: 769: 645: 478:

is unfamiliar to many. Knowledge articles are read by people all over the world. But the name

3547:

I gave reasons in my edit summaries where I removed your . For instance, see my edit summary

3433: 4981: 4939: 4909: 4849: 4822: 4775: 4769: 4736: 4703: 4663: 4620: 4593: 4540: 4521: 4476: 4434: 4408: 4365: 4347: 4324: 4281: 4245: 4202: 4159: 4117: 4078: 4054: 4012: 3967: 3963: 3952: 3935: 3931: 3921: 3911: 3902: 3884: 3880: 3865: 3833: 3815: 3811: 3764: 3731: 3712: 3687: 3683: 3672: 3641: 3573: 3533: 3490: 3472: 3468: 3438: 3400: 3378: 3354: 3326: 3299: 3262: 3208: 3171: 3137: 3107: 3077: 3032: 3012: 2968: 2951: 2303: 2265: 2261: 2236: 2224:

OK, Thank you for your guidance. But it has many un-sourced passages.That we have to tag. --

2218: 2214: 2186: 2182: 2171: 2104: 2100: 2047: 2043: 2032: 2028: 1981: 1963: 1959: 1944: 1926: 1922: 1911: 1893: 1889: 1875: 1871: 1861: 1839: 1835: 1788: 1746: 1742: 1723: 1719: 1656: 1652: 1590: 1586: 1543: 1528: 1503: 1499: 1485: 1466: 1437: 1433: 1386: 1382: 1363: 1347:

See sitush, you really have to learn something on decent behavior.I just started my work on

1330: 1326: 1304:

And now you have added it again, I know that you claim to be working on it but copyvios are

1299: 1295: 1287: 1279: 1266: 1262: 1243: 1202: 1164: 1160: 1141: 1118: 1114: 1056: 1052: 1041: 1018: 1014: 999: 978: 960: 956: 948: 938: 921: 917: 906: 886: 882: 862: 858: 843: 839: 815: 811: 796: 792: 773: 720: 697: 653: 597: 521: 495: 454: 411: 358: 350: 335: 308: 300: 275: 267: 257: 249: 238: 230: 220: 212: 196: 169: 139: 3821:

Yes, Thank you. I have just added an Rfc template there to attract a better participation.

3388:. Issue is with the auto-correction of new add-on SW that I installed for Google-Chrome. -- 1490:

Boing! is correct in saying that your comment on his page would have been better placed at

4952: