User talk:Chekaun

Recent edit to Nadar (caste)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nadar (caste), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chekaun, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chekaun! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Enathinathar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Enathinathar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Channar ( Jatt Clan)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Channar ( Jatt Clan) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from ebooksread.com/authors-eng/h-a-horace-arthur-rose/a-glossary-of-the-tribes-and-castes-of-the-punjab-and-north-west-frontier-provin-eso/page-20-a-glossary-of-the-tribes-and-castes-of-the-punjab-and-north-west-frontier-provin-eso.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jack Frost (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhava

Hi, I have reverted you at Ezhava for a bunch of reasons. Some of your changes to the existing phrasing were not an improvement and you seemed to be engaging in sanitisation with regard to issues concerning shudra status and the Chekavars. Another issue, although by no means the last, was that you introduced something sourced to a Lulu Press publication - Lulu is a vanity press and thus anything they publish is effectively self-published and thus unacceptable here. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Channar (surname) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Sitush (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

I have just helped you out by reverting these edits. They effectively transcluded the entire contents of WP:DRN to this talk page. Whatever you were trying to do, I'm pretty sure it was not that.

If you insist on taking the Channar issue to DRN you will be wasting your time because you have not initiated a discussion on the article talk page, nor allowed it to run for a reasonable time. There is a process, and you are not following it. Similarly, you are causing problems by creating new sections all over my own talk page, by not using indents, by using the wrong type of bracket etc.

No-one expects you to know it all and this place can be quite complicated. However, being aggressively insistent, as you have been, is not the way to collaborate with people who indubitably know much more about how Wikipedia works than you do. Take baby steps, listen, ask and read the responses (including any links they provide) - don't demand or run around like some headless chicken. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sitush - Okay, so that is what pinged me. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chekaun - User:Sitush is not a vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do later come to DRN, you will have to wait for someone else to moderate the dispute, because I will recuse, because this looks like a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for uncollaborative editing

You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours for insisting on calling good-faith edits vandalism despite being warned, for inserting and re-inserting unreliable sources despite being warned about that,[1][2] and generally for being uncollaborative and aggressive. Please understand that advice from experienced editors is intended to be helpful to you; it's not a reason to blindly attack them. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chekaun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

He edited the whole article Channar (surname). It was not created and it was for long in Wikipedia. He edited my edits in Ezhava as well as Channar surname in a matter of minutes. That is a suspicious activity. Bringing forward unblock rationales from malformed duplicates-- Channar (surname) was totally edited in the single day though it was there before I joined wiki and needed no citation. That seems suspicious. That is why I want a third opinion or talk and The Channar article was not created by me. How all the statements needed citation I do not know. It is truth I edited some. This seems suspicious.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chekaun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understood what I am blocked for and I won’t repeat it

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discretionary sanctions for Indian subjects

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Channar (surname)

You've just made three edits to Channar (surname) and I have had to revert them. One of your sources was a book published in the 1880s, despite it obviously not going to pass the guidance given at WP:HISTRS to which you have also been referred recently. Another was a cite linking to an illegally-hosted copyrighted work by Alf Hiltebeitel. Hiltebeitel does indeed mention Enathinathar on p. 380 but nowhere does he mention the guy being a Channar or (which is a different thing) bearing the name Channar. The third source was Swami Sivananda, who was a pseudo-historian when it came to matters relating to caste, was the founder of a "new religious movement" and in any event seems not to mention him in the source you provided. I have reverted you. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sivananda does mention Enathinathar in this book at chapter 9, which is a potted biography of the saint. But it says he was a "Shanar (toddy tapper)" - that has nothing to do with Channar (surname) and almost certainly is a reference to the Nadar caste. I don't mind helping people out here and I don't mind learning new things, but I do get a bit fed up when someone consistently sends me on wild goose chases while I try to fix their more basic errors in markup etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 #2

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Regarding this, are you honestly saying that Thomas Nossiter is a pseudo-historian? And that an article published in Modern Asian Studies, a modern peer-reviewed academic journal, is unreliable? I think you're just making things up because you don't like what they say. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that M. S. A. Rao is not reliable, as you claimed here? Really? You may not agree with a source but that doesn't make it unreliable for use on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chekaun, any more pointy behavior and expect your editing privileges to be indefinitely revoked without any further warning. ∯WBG^converse 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nossiter

He is a economist rather than a historian Chekaun (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, he studied as a historian and have you never heard of the economic history discipline? - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Asian studies

Its impact factor is 0.25. So it is not so reliable Chekaun (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of a reliable source and the factor is actually 0.4-something. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by the way, also recognised that impact factors are not a particularly good metric for non-science journals. The system has critics, regardless, but for history journals they're pretty irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of journals

Quality of journals are always linked to impact factor. The more the impact factor the articles will be reliable. I think Wikipedia should accept in their guidelines for articles that the journal should have a higher cut off at least more than one. Chekaun (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but that is not the consensus and in any case the quality of a journal is not the same as the quality of an article published by it. Our RS criteria always allows peer-reviewed academic articles in non-predatory journals, which Kodoth's was. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of ethnographic citations

I think Wikipedia should accept the citations by only reputed ethnologists and the name list of those ethnologists for each country should be published by Wikipedia. New comers like me will be benefitted and the overall quality of articles will be good then . In science you always need a bench mark. Chekaun (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Not everything in every article relates to ethnology, not even for articles about castes. It also rather contradicts your recent edits, where you have been adding sources written by ancient writers, founders of new religious movements etc. Make your mind up! - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing and misuse of sources, especially on caste-related pages. Compare all the warnings and advice on this page, which you do not appear to have profited from.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]