સાગર
Linking tribes/caste etc based on census data
editHi, consensus has long been that we do not link tribes/castes etc on census data, as you have been doing. That is primarily because of issues relating to ambiguity: there are distinct communities that share the same name and similar communities that bear different names etc, and it is a known problem with the census of India since British Raj times. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And, by the way, you seem to be surprisingly knowledgeable for a new contributor. I presume you have either edited for ages as an IP or have done a clean start. If not then you probably need to read WP:SOCK. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay; I won't be making any further edits based on census data. However, the article on List of Scheduled Tribes in Gujarat is already based on the 2011 Census. The edits I made to it were simply adding links to each of the tribes, as well fixing an error - Barodia tribe population is listed as 25,562 which is stated as being 5.47% of 8,89,1612, I did add some new information too but it was based on the census which was already referenced. So shouldn't that edit be reinstated? સાગર (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall that the Gujarat list was contested at some deletion debate. I may even have been one of those who contested it but I'm not very involved with Wikipedia at the moment. Certainly, lists such as that one are not very helpful - they're more likely to mislead than to inform. If there was an error regarding what the source said regarding population then I see no reason why you can't correct it. But the linking to other caste/tribe etc articles is not a good idea and trusting the census isn't either. Sometimes we have to live with the rubbish we have but there is no need to add to it. Does this make any sense? WP:OSE addresses the point in a rather convoluted way. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand now, sorry સાગર (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall that the Gujarat list was contested at some deletion debate. I may even have been one of those who contested it but I'm not very involved with Wikipedia at the moment. Certainly, lists such as that one are not very helpful - they're more likely to mislead than to inform. If there was an error regarding what the source said regarding population then I see no reason why you can't correct it. But the linking to other caste/tribe etc articles is not a good idea and trusting the census isn't either. Sometimes we have to live with the rubbish we have but there is no need to add to it. Does this make any sense? WP:OSE addresses the point in a rather convoluted way. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit
Hello, સાગર. 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)