User talk:Sapah3

Welcome!

Hello, Sapah3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asian people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @HiLo48:, thank you for your message. There is a source that uses the term "Monsoon Asia". I am not sure if this appropriate or not. I have reverted your edit again but if you don't agree you can revert it edit again and I can open a discussion at the talk page to achieve consensus. Thank you.(Sapah3 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

General Sanctions Notice

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Brown Canadians

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Brown Canadians, which you proposed for deletion. I've stated my reasons on Talk:Brown Canadians. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent involvement in revert disputes

Hi Sapah3, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency of your usage of "undo"/"revert", with detailed edit summaries instead of talk page discussion. Perhaps you could reconsider that approach. Thanks and best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nightfury 08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desi

Dear Sapah3, in response to your latest revision, where you state that the term desi applies strictly to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis only, that is based on only sources 2 and 3. And source 2 is an opinion piece in a magazine targeted toward South Asians. If you look at source 1, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, it states that desi is a term that applies to South Asians living in the United States and UK. And it goes on to say that South Asians include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans. Therefore, it makes sense that the term desi would apply to Sri Lankans living in the US/UK as well as the other three groups. In addition, while source 3, the Oxford Dictionary, states that desi is a term for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary includes those three groups and also Sri Lankans. Here is the link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1:

Just something to think about. Thanks.174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your comment. I understand what you are telling me but the general consensus is that Sri Lankans (and Nepalis) are not within the core definition of "desi". In regards to the first source it doesn't actually mention the term "Sri Lankan" so to infer that because Sri Lankans are South Asians they are "desi" would constitute original research and that's not allowed according to the rules of Wikipedia. Yes your source suggests Sri Lankans are "desi" but other sources (like the one listed on the Desi article page) don't. What we can see is that the term is open to opinion and the only thing we can do is understand that while some countries may be considered "desi" and others not, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will always be considered "desi" no matter what context we use "desi" in. So that is why the article lede describes this reality by highlighting the fact that the term is subjective and that it is generally accepted that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are "desi" nations. I hope this helps you understand why the article has been written the way that it has been written. (Sapah3 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your response. So it sounds like you're saying India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are always considered "desi" and other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka or Nepal may or may not be considered "desi" depending on whom you ask. Do I have that right? Thank you for your objective and balanced response to my question.174.140.115.206 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]