Leftover clean to stabilised Jat (caste) article

change

once again outguessing that non sensical editor and who persistently try to vandalise article can you reinitiate the stable version before this User:102.46.201.21 [1] edit made by a certain user has once again crossed all limit by miserably altering the article. The previous revision was more stable and reliable, and I strongly believe that it should be reinstated. The article should not be compromised due to sudden, biased targeting. 2409:40D6:10E7:8EFF:48EF:1822:740D:E69F (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please have this discussion on the talk page and focus on the content issues, not the users making them. Thanks, Griff (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can i invalidate one more user who persistently attacking same page for disposing the same point as an earlier account on Maan (caste) for same cross wiki purpose to harming some other Jat clan article for fronting the leading changes User:2409:4050:2D34:9635:C544:4DE9:9801:C032 2409:40D6:10E7:8EFF:48EF:1822:740D:E69F (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, you may not. Please discuss issues on the talk page. I understand that they may be wrong, but this requires discussion, not accusations. Griff (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
For now if he again showed up its my pleasantness to make an effusive Sock investigation how about that it may be recapitulate this repulsive issue@Griffinofwales ok thats for having me, beforehand just look at request of Jat talk Page all the best for your future 2409:40D6:10E7:8EFF:48EF:1822:740D:E69F (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Povpush and castecruft

change

Hey admin, there is a user User:Aminghavy who’s constantly being involved in adding unsourced information to articles such as ‘jat caste’, ‘ maan’, etc. He’s constantly adding information that seems like povpush and caste glorification. On reverting the unfair edit, the user tried to warn me instead. The user must be told that simple.wiki pages are not personal blogs and only unbiased information should be added along with reliable citations. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Forgot about this, my apologies. That user has been restricted from editing those articles. In the meantime, could you go on the talk pages and explain why your version is better? From a basic reading, your version is "stable", but there is a controversy here I do not quite understand, and I would appreciate your thoughts. In the mean time, while this dispute is ongoing, please discuss all changes on the talk page prior to editing the articles.
Thanks, Griff (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Zettabyte

change

Why was Zettabyte deleted? Either restore it, or it should exist as a redirect. Other pages like Exabyte (smaller than ZB) and Yottabyte (larger than ZB) exist already. 2601:644:907E:A70:514B:C85:7AA8:AC50 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

A redirect has been created. The original article was an AI mess. Feel free to re-create the article with appropriate sources. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Griff (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you. 2601:644:907E:A70:514B:C85:7AA8:AC50 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply