User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2016/February

Komati Caste
Hi Jbhunley,

I have edited a page called Komati Caste and have provided ample references and citations for the same. Request you to please review them and advise.

Reg,

Wise Wik — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed several obviously inappropriate sources - Wikipedia self-cite, links to user generated content / web pages etc. Please read Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources as well as the policies on verifibility and no original research. The other sources you cite need to give page numbers for where the information you are referring to can be found. I know nothing about castes so I can not really comment on the article content. Later, when I have a block of free time in a day, I will see if I can find some other references on the subject.  Keep up the good work. Wikipedia's sourcing policies can be difficult at first but good articles require good sources. If you have not read it yet WP:FIRST has good advice but make sure to read the in it as well since they describe the policies in detail.  J bh  Talk  16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley

Thank you for reviewing my page and correcting my edits!

Regards,

WiseWik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.167.197 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley and all the esteemed editors and readers of Wikipedia - Kautilya, the edits to the article is as per the reference cited and have given comments for every edit mentioning the same. Request you to please check them before removing the edits. As per the edits I have only reinstated what is mentioned as per the references cited. Why is the same being reverted would this not be called edit warring? and rather the privileges of such editors be revoked here? And again why is sourced content being modified here. I have clearly mentioned the reference as well as the reason for the edit in the edit summary for all my edits under the heading "Edit Summary". The reference cites Komatis to be present in Maharashtra and will repaste the same reference that you yourself have sourced and cited (BTW looks deliberate as there is inclusion of minor incidents that reference to riots and other inciteful content between communities which serve no informative purpose here) To further reason, why should any incident involving another community that occurred during the British Era in a particular time limited to George Town which is nothing but a nook and corner incident, even find mention here? and again I have only included only the sourced content from the same reference provided then why is it removed and pasted in bits? as if to incite people or communities further? I checked further and found these to be included by user Kautilya and is of surprise to me here as I didn't expect this from Wikipedia editors as I held user Kautilya in good esteem.

Again it clearly mentions riots happened when business contracts alluded Komatis and Balijia Naidus who were first to riot with Beri Chettiars which forced the British to apportion commercial and residential areas of George Town.

My edit cites the same here below is the reference" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=imh4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=komati+caste&source=bl&ots=UPEt8nWzsh&sig=dLRi4_vSSASbrRCjU_mZ3_EZoEY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialpWjjIHLAhUGcI4KHRXAAFA4ChDoAQg_MAc#v=onepage&q=komati&f=false"

Mines, Mattison (1992), "Individuality and Achievement in South Indian Social History", Modern Asian Studies 26 (1): 129–156, JSTOR 312720

Also finally let's not discredit the origins of Gomathi for the alternate origins mentioned by authors during British times and exclude the importance of contemporary authors and keep both of them. Mentioning Gomathi as "one theory" seems to discredit the same, hence I have mentioned both the accepted and alternate theory about British authors during the Raj. I also checked further information and also found that the Author is from the same community and hence it's of obvious credence. Also the same that the word Komati to have its origins in Gomathi is mentioned in government journals which cannot be rubbished away.

Regards,

--WiseWik (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)WiseWik


 * Dear Jbhulney, Since this editor is thankfully taking your advice, can you please advise him on the procedures of WP:BRD? I have responded to his issues on the Talk:Komati caste, but I am afraid his repeated POV-pushing is getting tiresome. I might need to take it to WP:ANI if he continues in this way. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross
The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley: Thanks for your work at the article, but I hope you don't mind if I speak bluntly about WP:DRN: time spent there on a case like this is time wasted. My only concern is that you may get exhausted from the protracted bickering, which is the means used by edit warriors to drive away opponents—wear them down by engaging them in never-ending disputes until they go away. DRN is great when people of good faith come together to learn whether there is a solution to a content dispute, but DRN is a waste of time in a case like this. You don't need to say anything there, and what third-parties at DRN think has no bearing whatsoever, so my suggestion would be to ignore it. By the way, text is missing from the "talk" link in your signature—clicking the link does not go to this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It all looks moot now. The OP at DRN has been topic banned, not an unexpected outcome considering their history on the article. Thanks for pointing out the messed up link. I munged my signature on one of my posts at DRN when I was editing my next comment (not used to iPad editing) and "corrected" User talk: Jbhunley to UserJbhunley breaking the link. J bh  Talk  15:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)