Jump to content

User talk:Chess/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71

This Month in Education: March 2025

This Month in Education

Volume 14 • Issue 3 • March 2025

In This Issue

Possible personal attacks

I find this edit to be a violation of WP:CIVIL. You are going around accusing someone of being a sockpuppet multiple times in a single RM discussion. Can you please self-revert until the end of the sockpuppet investigation? If the individual is indeed a sockpuppet, you will have ample opportunity to strike out their comments. Such comments are very inflammatory. The place for sockpuppet allegations is WP:SPI and not article talk pages.

If you don't self-revert, then we need to seek an opinion from an admin or at WP:AE. VR (Please ping on reply) 17:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent:. Sure. I respect your understanding on what is and isn't a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'll self-revert. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the April 2025 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

Election results: In our December 2025 coordinator election, Wracking stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Mox Eden were reelected coordinators, and IQR and WikiEditor5678910 were newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).

Drive: 55 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive 33 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 611,404 words in 237 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: 14 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 10 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 46,749 words in 18 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 47 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. 28 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 479,172 words in 207 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 13 to 19 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.

Progress report: As of 9:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 89 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,264 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, IQR, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and WikiEditor5678910.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

  • Later this week, the default thumbnail size will be increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn't previously possible due to technical limitations. [1]
  • File thumbnails are now stored in discrete sizes. If a page specifies a thumbnail size that's not among the standard sizes (20, 40, 60, 120, 250, 330, 500, 960), then MediaWiki will pick the closest larger thumbnail size but will tell the browser to downscale it to the requested size. In these cases, nothing will change visually but users might load slightly larger images. If it doesn't matter which thumbnail size is used in a page, please pick one of the standard sizes to avoid the extra in-browser down-scaling step. [2][3]

Updates for editors

  • The Wikimedia Foundation are working on a system called Edge Uniques which will enable A/B testing, help protect against Distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS attacks), and make it easier to understand how many visitors the Wikimedia sites have. This is so that they can more efficiently build tools which help readers, and make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for.
  • To improve security for users, a small percentage of logins will now require that the account owner input a one-time password emailed to their account. It is recommended that you check that the email address on your account is set correctly, and that it has been confirmed, and that you have an email set for this purpose. [4]
  • "Are you interested in taking a short survey to improve tools used for reviewing or reverting edits on your Wiki?" This question will be asked at 7 wikis starting next week, on Recent Changes and Watchlist pages. The Moderator Tools team wants to know more about activities that involve looking at new edits made to your Wikimedia project, and determining whether they adhere to your project's policies.
  • On April 15, the full Wikidata graph will no longer be supported on query.wikidata.org. After this date, scholarly articles will be available through query-scholarly.wikidata.org, while the rest of the data hosted on Wikidata will be available through the query.wikidata.org endpoint. This is part of the scheduled split of the Wikidata Graph, which was announced in September 2024. More information is available on Wikidata.
  • The latest quarterly Wikimedia Apps Newsletter is now available. It covers updates, experiments, and improvements made to the Wikipedia mobile apps.
  • Recurrent item View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • The latest quarterly Technical Community Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: an invitation for tool maintainers to attend the Toolforge UI Community Feedback Session on April 15th; recent community metrics; and recent technical blog posts.
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ben Williams (American football, born 1970) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia since April 15. It is the first project that will be able to call functions from Wikifunctions and integrate them in articles. A function is something that takes one or more inputs and transforms them into a desired output, such as adding up two numbers, converting miles into metres, calculating how much time has passed since an event, or declining a word into a case. Wikifunctions will allow users to do that through a simple call of a stable and global function, rather than via a local template. [5]
  • A new type of lint error has been created: Empty headings (documentation). The Linter extension's purpose is to identify wikitext patterns that must or can be fixed in pages and provide some guidance about what the problems are with those patterns and how to fix them. [6]
  • Recurrent item View all 37 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Following its publication on HuggingFace, the "Structured Contents" dataset, developed by Wikimedia Enterprise, is now also available on Kaggle. This Beta initiative is focused on making Wikimedia data more machine-readable for high-volume reusers. They are releasing this beta version in a location that open dataset communities already use, in order to seek feedback, to help improve the product for a future wider release. You can read more about the overall Structured Contents project, and about the first release that's freely usable.
  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings and events

  • The Editing and Machine Learning Teams invite interested volunteers to a video meeting to discuss Peacock check, which is the latest Edit check that will detect "peacock" or "overly-promotional" or "non-neutral" language whilst an editor is typing. Editors who work with newcomers, or help to fix this kind of writing, or are interested in how we use artificial intelligence in our projects are encouraged to attend. The meeting will be on April 28, 2025 at 18:00–19:00 UTC and hosted on Zoom.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inah Canabarro Lucas on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion under consideration

An investigation you filed, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#11_April_2025, is now the subject of Arbitration Committee motions. The motions are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2.

Your comments are welcome. If you need procedural assistance, you may contact the arbitration clerks either publicly or privately via email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I think it'd be a good idea to also notify Vice regent, who commented at that SPI casepage. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think my edit summary pinged you, but just letting you know that after your !vote, I changed the wording of "would apply" to "should be followed" to make the question a bit more clear [7]. I don't think that wording change will have much of an effect on your !vote, but just letting you know in case it does. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Event organizers who host collaborative activities on multiple wikis, including Bengali, Japanese, and Korean Wikipedias, will have access to the CampaignEvents extension this week. Also, admins in the Wikipedia where the extension is enabled will automatically be granted the event organizer right soon. They won't have to manually grant themselves the right before they can manage events as requested by a community.
  • Recurrent item View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • The release of the next major version of Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, is scheduled for 29 April 2025. Technical editors will have access to the release by the week of 5 May 2025. This update will include a number of breaking changes and minor visual changes. Instructions on handling the breaking and visual changes are documented on this page. Pre-release testing is reported in T386298, with post-release issues tracked in T392379 and T392390.
  • Users of Wiki Replicas will notice that the database views of ipblocks, ipblocks_ipindex, and ipblocks_compat are now deprecated. Users can query the block and block_target new views that mirror the new tables in the production database instead. The deprecated views will be removed entirely from Wiki Replicas in June, 2025.
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

Meetings and events

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Impact on Move Discussion

Thank you, @Chess, for the notification of the Arbitration Committee ban of the user who initiated the move request at Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests. Is there a way to further raise the implications of the ban on the move request besides a comment that might be missed by an admin or another user who seeks to close the move discussion? Coining (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Coining: There's no user-tagging template that specifically covers this situation. However, normally, you're allowed to tag blocked sockpuppets with Template:Confirmed sockpuppet and strike through their comments. I would personally come up with some kind of tag that looks similar to that one explaining the situation and striking through their !votes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Smallangryplanet

Hi. Dropping in as a 3rd party with some interest in the motion regarding smallangryplanet. I just wanted to point you to the ultimately unsuccessful AE case I made, which I nonetheless continue to believe presents unambiguous evidence of NPOV violations and POV pushing. (Please do advise if there’s some rule I’m violating by making this comment, and I shall promptly delete.) Johnadams11 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It's ambiguous because the topic area has very little content policies specifically adapted for it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Message removal

I've removed this message as an interim measure. This includes too much off-wiki evidence that should be sent via email if it is to be submitted, makes aspersions about potential membership of off-wiki groups that you cannot support with evidence on-wiki due to the first point, and as a result can't stand on the public page. You're welcome to refactor your message to focus on the last paragraph, minus any specific off-wiki evidence or quoting of material from off-wiki private sources, which again should be submitted via email. Regards, Daniel (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel: There's a public tweet announcing the project and a public Telegram channel Zei links from her Twitter and uses to make announcements to her followers. What is the standard you're using for off-wiki evidence? If can't use tweets, can I use newspaper articles? Can I use the expanded dossier? Zei_Squirrel does not appear to be a Wikipedia editor and I don't see how I could've outed her.
Also, how can I not cast aspersions about membership in offwiki groups? Isn't the entire point of the motion to accuse Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 of offwiki canvassing? If you don't think that happened, why did you vote in support of the t-ban? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Submit all of what you described above via email and it will be considered there. My support for the motion is based on numerous factors, as I articulated in my vote there. If you wish to appeal my removal of your comment, then you can do so by emailing the Committee and outlining your argument. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-19

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

Updates for editors

  • For wikis that have the CampaignEvents extension enabled, two new feature improvements have been released:
    • Admins can now choose which namespaces are permitted for Event Registration via Community Configuration (documentation). The default setup is for event registration to be permitted in the Event namespace, but other namespaces (such as the project namespace or WikiProject namespace) can now be added. With this change, communities like WikiProjects can now more easily use Event Registration for their collaborative activities.
    • Editors can now transclude the Collaboration List on a wiki page (documentation). The Collaboration List is an automated list of events and WikiProjects on the wikis, accessed via Special:AllEvents (example). Now, the Collaboration List can be added to all sorts of wiki pages, such as: a wiki mainpage, a WikiProject page, an affiliate page, an event page, or even a user page.
  • Recurrent item View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Developers who use the moment library in gadgets and user scripts should revise their code to use alternatives like the Intl library or the new mediawiki.DateFormatter library. The moment library has been deprecated and will begin to log messages in the developer console. You can see a global search for current uses, and ask related questions in this Phabricator task.
  • Developers who maintain a tool that queries the Wikidata term store tables (wbt_*) need to update their code to connect to a separate database cluster. These tables are being split into a separate database cluster. Tools that query those tables via the wiki replicas must be adapted to connect to the new cluster instead. Documentation and related links are available. [8]
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

  • The latest Chart Project newsletter is available. It includes updates on preparing to expand the deployment to additional wikis as soon as this week (starting May 6) and scaling up over the following weeks, plus exploring filtering and transforming source data.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Kshatriya close review

I'm not sure if the arguments in the discussion favoured a "support" close. A lot of people took the sources provided by Dympies at face value, but after doing a review of them, many had quotes taken out of context and some failed WP:V. You can see the review of sources here.

The proposed wording of the RFC question was: "Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it." In your closing statement you write: That being said, the proposed wording doesn't exactly reflect that "Rajputs attained Kshatriya". But the proposed wording says exactly that: "the Rajputs were most successful in attaining [Kshatriya status]." Neutral wording would say "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status". As it stands now, it is being said in WP:WikiVoice that Rajputs are Kshatriyas, which does seem a lot like caste WP:PROMOTION and I don't think Wikipedia should be taking sides when it comes to Indian castes. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: Your source analysis is interesting but wasn't provided at the RfC, so it can't play a role in my close.
The reason why I encouraged editors to provide an alternative wording is because the main bit of consensus is to include the claim in the article. The wording is more disputed. If you feel like a more neutral wording would be one that says Rajputs were "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status" you should propose that. That's why I emphasized that the wording can be changed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
It is a really confusing close, Chess. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are saying that the proposed statement should be included in the article even though it is poor and should be be changed. That sets a low bar for the quality of information which we provide: surely it is better to say nothing about something than to misrepresent?
Anyways, it is done now, I guess, and I'm not a regular participant in RfCs so will bow to your experience. - Sitush (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sitush: It's a confusing close because it was a confusing discussion, but your understanding is essentially correct.
  • There's two aspects to the close. The first is summarizing what was agreed upon. The second is trying to move the discussion forwards.
  • In terms of what was agreed upon, there's two subpoints.
    • Is there consensus to examine Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya status in that article?
      • Yes, there is.
      • Most editors on both sides agreed that Rajputs' claim to be Kshatriya, and there's plenty of reliable sources covering that.
      • Most editors also agree that there is value to discussing this in the article, NitinMlk says: It seems okay to summarise castes in the context of Kshatriya with proper details, along with listing Rajputs as the most successful claimants. But the proposed passing mention is misleading.
      • The main argument for excluding this dispute entirely is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: i.e. that there are many contrasting views on this, so we should exclude it entirely.
    • Is there consensus to describe that claim as Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it?
      • This was significantly weaker.
      • Oppose !voters brought up a lot of potential issues.
      • For instance, LukeEmily made a lot of references to possible scholarly consensus about Rajputs being a "shudra varna", or how their acceptance as Kshatriya is political.
      • Another editor argued that the caste comparison was promotional.
      • There wasn't much engagement between the sides. Oppose argued that there should be context, support argued that this didn't invalidate the sourcing of the statement.
      • I would really have liked more discussion on the specific wording since it would make the consensus easier to evaluate. I evaluated it as "support" because support gave stronger arguments with better sourcing and more people. Additionally, many oppose !voters didn't argue that the wording was invalid, just that additional context needed to be added. This is kind of borderline, though.
      • You could also argue that the first subpoint had consensus, but the second subpoint did not have consensus or even had consensus against. However, I think it's not that important because in almost all cases the next steps should still be the same (propose a new wording and gain consensus).
  • The second goal I'm trying to achieve with the close is to try to push editors towards something other than going to WP:AN to overturn the close, succeeding, then waiting for another close, getting the same result, and going in circles. I see this all the time and it's honestly faster to just re-argue the parts of the discussion that were borderline rather than go WP:AN to see which side of the border is correct.
    • Ideally, TurboSuperA+, NitinMlk, and you would go to Talk:Kshatriya to start a new discussion on an alternative wording that addresses your concerns, instead of rehashing this one.
    • At that discussion, since it's now agreed that the article should include information regarding Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya, you can focus the discussion on the best way to express that.
    • You will get a much stronger consensus on one side or the other, now that your concerns are addressed in a proposal that editors from both sides can agree upon.
If this is clearer than my original explanation, I could add something to the close. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have a ponder! I appreciate you going to the trouble of explaining. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Chess, Thank you for the detailed explanation. @Sitush:, with respect, I have to say that this close was incorrect. I was very surprised. In fact, the same RFC had been previously closed with "do not support" by another editor - and nothing new had been added since then. The opposing sources were very clear that they did not support the statement. Chess mentioned that I was mentioning their shudra status (in hindu texts, persian texts as well as opinions of modern scholars). Does that not directly contradict the statement? Also, I pointed out the opinion M.N.Srinivas as well as Gupta which clearly states that there is no consensus on who is a real kshatriya. They put Marathas, Rajputs, Jats, etc in the same bucket. Recent survey was also mentioned that Rajput upper caste claim is not accepted. I am not sure if you missed that - maybe I should have given all in one place. Dalits(Pasi community) have also merged with the Rajput community as shown by Kolff. @TurboSuperA+:, I agree with you. And almost no one addressed the opposing sources which directly contradict the RFC. Sources saying that "They were not accepted as kshatriya by Brahmins as well as other Kshatriya claimants" is the same as saying they were not most successful in attaining kshatriya status. If I claim to have a PhD from Cambridge and multiple scholars point out that my credentials are fabricated and that I graduated from University of Maryland, then I cannot say that I am most successful in claiming to be a graduate of Cambridge. Just my 2 cents.LukeEmily (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@LukeEmily Ahem, I did actually graduate from Cambridge :) Although I do enjoy Maryland Cookies.
@Sitush:, wow!!!! That is very impressive. You are a celebrity editor :-) But that explains the high quality of your edits and knowledge as well as your communication skills on the talk pages.LukeEmily (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I think that the closure was contrived but no-one was going to do otherwise. It really just leaves us in the same SNAFU situation because all Chess has confirmed with the closure is that everyone still agrees that there isn't an issue with referring to Rajputs per se, just as they did before the RfC was opened. We are no nearer to resolving the actual issue which led to the RfC, which is how to refer to them. Basically, the biggest achievement here has been to reduce the list of open RfCs by one ... but that is scarcely the "fault" (for want of a better word) of Chess. It was and remains a nightmare, as most things related to Rajputs on Wikipedia tend to be.
People are going to have to find a way to agree on a phrasing that isn't so obviously inadequate. My money is on that being yet another RfC.Groundhog Day. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sitush: A second RfC is what I was recommending. That RfC was flawed because it only had two options and you didn't discuss the precise wording beforehand (see WP:RFCBEFORE). This is a somewhat common result.
I think a better wording could actually achieve a consensus but you will have to write a draft before starting the RfC. Ideally, draft a whole section of the article.
The most surprising thing to me is that Kshatriya has two sentences about the term post-700 CE. Despite what appears to be 1300 years of controversy about who is allowed to call themselves a "Kshatriya", the article ignores the issue. This isn't part of the close or anything, but that's a huge omission. You seem to have the sources that describe the dispute (51 references!!), you agree on what the dispute is about (can groups become or claim to be Kshatriya?), can even agree on the opposing sides (yes, no, only in certain contexts, etc), and even manage to see this as a subjective issue.
I think you should start big instead of making incremental changes, and ideally try to resolve WP:NPOV disputes by explaining multiple sides of the issue instead of removing disputed content. You might have better success that way. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
There will never be agreement beyond a WP:DICDEF type of meta level article. Caste is a social, political, religious and economic battleground in the real world and varna is at the heart of caste. I've been dealing with it on Wikipedia for over 15 years, have seen cohorts of contributors come and go, and have no doubt that some who participated in the RfC will be forced to go soon.
Glorification is central to the battle, sock- and meatpuppetry is rife, as is tag-teaming etc, and ArbCom-imposed structures have only a limited effect. For most contributors over the years, this article isn't a pseudo-academic encyclopedia exercise but rather a tool for personal ends. There are times when the mission of Wikipedia has to accept defeat: we either completely ban from such articles all people with less than a truly massive amount of WP experience and all of Indian descent (impossible, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater) or we live with continuous skirmishes and a poor article. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Your source analysis is interesting but wasn't provided at the RfC, so it can't play a role in my close.-Chess. Chess, the source analysis by TurboSuperA+ indicates a major issue with the sources provided. I agree that it was not supplied earlier and hence did not play a part in your close but now that it is supplied, should we not revisit if the close was correct?LukeEmily (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Sure. I would say the best place to do that is the talk page. There are still outstanding issues with the wording. That's why I'm trying to move towards a new RfC on the wording choice instead of the close review cycle that doesn't actually go anywhere. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • LukeEmily and TurboSuperA+ Although the RfC is now closed with a rather contentious result, I am not going to implement the wording as it has too many problems with it. Although Ekdalian's comment was discarded by the closer, they did raise valid points about Dympies's conduct especially with regards to caste glorification.[9] Those that have problems about Dympies's conduct throughout the RfC can discuss it on WP:AE where there is currently a complaint against him right now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dympies. Discussing the wording, if necessary, should be the next step if anyone wants to really add the content on Kshatriya. Koshuri (グ) 07:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Koshuri Sultan, here you appear to be canvassing users for ARE report against me. Such behavior doesn't go unnoticed. Ekdalian's remarks should better be ignored as they got logged warning recently for poisoning the well against other users including me.[10] And whats so wrong about this RfC? It was just another RfC meant to resolve a content dispute which saw participation from a lot of users. Dramatically enough, you had yourself supported the proposal and are now finding faults in it. Dympies (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@Dympies People are allowed to change their mind, often based on arguments advanced by other people. This is the second time inside a week that you have seemed to suggest otherwise (see here) and it doesn't bode well for the entire concept of consensus-building. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground of "them" versus "us". Anyways, this discussion really should be at the article talk page, not here. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2025

This Month in Education

Volume 14 • Issue 4 • April 2025

In This Issue

The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-20

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

  • The "Get shortened URL" link on the sidebar now includes a QR code. Wikimedia site users can now use it by scanning or downloading it to quickly share and access shared content from Wikimedia sites, conveniently.

Updates for editors

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a system called Edge Uniques, which will enable A/B testing, help protect against distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS attacks), and make it easier to understand how many visitors the Wikimedia sites have. This is to help more efficiently build tools which help readers, and make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for. Tech News has previously written about this. The deployment will be gradual. Some might see the Edge Uniques cookie the week of 19 May. You can discuss this on the talk page.
  • Starting May 19, 2025, Event organisers in wikis with the CampaignEvents extension enabled can use Event Registration in the project namespace (e.g., Wikipedia namespace, Wikidata namespace). With this change, communities don't need admins to use the feature. However, wikis that don't want this change can remove and add the permitted namespaces at Special:CommunityConfiguration/CampaignEvents.
  • The Wikipedia project now has a Wikipedia in Nupe (w:nup:). This is a language primarily spoken in the North Central region of Nigeria. Speakers of this language are invited to contribute to new Wikipedia.
  • Recurrent item View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Developers can now access pre-parsed Dutch Wikipedia, amongst others (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese) through the Structured Contents snapshots (beta). The content includes parsed Wikipedia abstracts, descriptions, main images, infoboxes, article sections, and references.
  • The /page/data-parsoid REST API endpoint is no longer in use and will be deprecated. It is scheduled to be turned off on June 7, 2025.
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

  • The IPv6 support is a newly introduced Cloud virtual network that significantly boosts Wikimedia platforms' scalability, security, and readiness for the future. If you are a technical contributor eager to learn more, check out this blog post for an in-depth look at the journey to IPv6.

Meetings and events

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chess/Archive_70&oldid=1291846746"