Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~)
I will reply on your talk page. Talk page is archived once a month. If this is important you can E-mail me here. Otherwise please add new messages at the bottom of this page. Thank you.KingLopez
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, people who participate in RFAs, myself included, consider edit summaries very important. It's a quick way to let other editors see what you're doing. Plus, vandals don't usually use summaries, so it helps when checking watchlists. When I'm looking at mine, I check for edits by IP addresses, edits by users with a redlinked username, big changes, and edits without summaries. You'll pretty much have to start using them on almost all of your edits if you want to pass an RFA (either that or log 10,000 edits). Useight (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Those blocks were just over 1 year ago. Many editors feel that you have to be 6 months block-free, so you have that. However, there were two blocks in short succession, which could make the average !voter go from 6 months to 1 year. But, they were a year ago and you only had the account for a month at the time. I think you'll be fine. Useight (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi King Lopez pleased to meet you, well done for reverting vandalism on the Jat people article. I thank you. The reason why there are so many vandals on the Jat people article is because its about a ethnic group and so it attracts alot racist vandalizers. Please can you put it in your watch list we need all the help we can get. A good idea is maybe tell 3-4 other experienced wikipedians to keep an eye on it in their watchlists so we can all keep eye on it and prevent vanadalism. The main things to watch out for in vandalism attempts are 1. Page blankings 2. Removal or references 3. Hate racist or negative comments about this ethnic group and other general hate negative statements.
Please can you put it in your watch list we need all the help we can get. A good idea is tell 3-4 other experienced wikipedians to keep it in their watchlist and watch and check for 1. Page blankings 2. Removal or references 3. Hate racist or negative comments about this ethnic group and other general hate negative statements.
I hope you can help - we need to reduce ethnic hate in the world so please protect the article.
Hi King Lopez, I thank you for your help and putting it in your watch list. I really appreciate this.
I think your suggestion of getting semi-protection on the article is an excellent way to protect it from racism.
The reason why semi protection is an excellent idea for Jat people article is because of the following:
1. Vast majority of the racist vandalizers are anons (who do not have wiki accounts)
2. A racist vandal would need an account and could be blocked if they perform racists edits on the article.
3. Vast majority of genuine good editors will already have an account and act responsibly.
4. It is an article about an ethnic group so it will always be under threat from racist anons (who do not have wiki accounts)
In short getting semi-protection for the article would stop vast majority (99%) of the vandal attacks. Finally, it would reduce the workload long-term for wikipedians who are trying to protect the article, like you & me.
Hi King Lopez, there seems for the time being low activity this month by vandals. Therefore, I am afraid if we put a massive semi-protect tag at the top of the article it will only awake them again. Therefore, lets leave it for the time being, try to keep things quiet. I retract my request for semi-protection for time being. However, thank you friend for your help. If you keep an eye on it that will be enough. Thanks friend.--Historian info (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's looking real nice now. It's the first one I've seen that had some actual formatting instead of just text. Useight (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Archives: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.
RFA thanks 
:.
