User talk:Josslined

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nambudiri, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. Sitush (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush (talk), thanks for the message. I was planning on adding sources later, when I got time. The article needs a lot of work, given the importance of the community in Kerala history etc. I thought I could have left it unsourced, at least for the time being, since I don't believe any of it will actually be contested since the information is generally undisputed and commonly known among those familiar with the subject. When I get the time I'll reinstate and add sources. Thanks Josslined (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other families at that time? ALL other families you mentioned might have evolved or originated at later time. However at original point the tradition says only 4 families converted. Also I can say and add my family Alapppattu Thrikkalathoor as Pakalomattom. Many families claim as Pakalomattom. Would you want to do that? Better stick to that four families at the original point. thanks. Phantom (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Phantom (talk), the historical sources cited mention these 12 families as some of the families converted. I have read quite a few accounts and nearly all mention 12 or 32 with the 4 being the most important. If you have a source that says otherwise, please state it and we can compare it. It seems to me, you are recounting the tradition as you have heard it from others and not from a reliable source nor the ones cited in the article, which clearly mention the other gramams. For an encyclopedia these things need citations- preferrably from peer-reviewed or academically reviewed texts. The most reliable sources I've seen, i.e. Frykenberg, lists the families stated currently in the article. Frykenberg also gives the impression not all syrian christians in the middle ages (since accounts of these legends only go back to middle ages, at best) claimed to descend from these gramams. The namboothiri christians were an elite sect of the wider nasrani community and the pakalomattom etc. were at the top.

As an aside, I am aware nearly all syrian christians now days claim to be descended from one of these 4 hoary families, most seemingly from pakalomattom- of course this can't be true even if these legends are true since majority of the community weren't said from these clans in the middle ages. There was a trend in the 80s for nearly everyone in the community to write grandiloquent family histories, though historians such as Frykenberg have used (hopefully) more reliable family history accounts (which apparently do exist). Nonetheless, I believe according to reliable sources (I think the Travancore State Manuel) the Pakalomattom, Sankarpuri,etc. families actually became extinct a few centuries ago (I will need check this). Josslined (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Josslined. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions regime

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- Sitush (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Josslined. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLEMIC

I strongly suggest you remove your pet-peeves from your userpage. They violate user page policy. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative being a WP:G10-nomination (attack page). Your choice. Kleuske (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Kleuske (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I can't write I want to counter the racism in wikipedia? Who am I attacking?Josslined (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --Josslined (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't attacked any person. I basically wrote I want to combat racism that contributes to western centric editing on wikipedia. Josslined (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have figured out why "Wikimedia Foundation has “completely failed” to meet its goals of resolving the lack of diversity amongst Wikipedia editors". Anyone who mentions the racism (in the abstract too) here is ganged up/persecuted. Josslined (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because policy forbids badmouthing others? We have Tumblr/Twatter for that. Kleuske (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no one should mention they are trying to counterbalance the racism here.Josslined (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX and not intended to right Great Wrongs. Besides, how is "brown nosed sell-outs" not an attack? Kleuske (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who specifically am I attacking? I believe editors should strive to remove the racism on wikipedia, by both western centric editors from the global north and the token editors from the global south who validate racist views. Josslined (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "brown nodes sell-outs" having "white sounding names"? I'm desperately trying to interpret that as being non-racist. Please elucidate for those less woke than you. Kleuske (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I don't think it is my job to educate you as to 101 what racism is, or how to read. I wrote how sources written by white sounding names are considered more credible among some editors than sources with non-white sounding names. 'Brown nose sell-out' is someone who sucks up to other people. Josslined (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Well. It's my sad duty to educate you. Wikipedia doesn't care how names sound. It cares whether or not sources are reliable and whether or not they're summarized neutrally. If you have evidence that "some editors" consider "sources written by white sounding names" more credible than others, I suggest you bring it up at the village pump or the appropriate talk-page, where such things can be discussed. I do warn you about casting aspersions, which is frowned upon. Kleuske (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Josslined. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]