User talk:Kotthu

hi

Sheepgain (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

thank u Kotthu (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Atlantic Creole

added a link pointing to Chavis

Brass Ankles

added a link pointing to Chavis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Yuchitown (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you! Kotthu (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Per a few longstanding consensuses on the project, Wikipedia articles on ethnic groups like Native American tribes should not feature galleries of individuals who are members of said group. See MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES for more details. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you! Kotthu (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Your account is very very new, your edits seem ok and reasonable, so I hope you can deal with this source responsibly. Here's the source we talked about, remember, if you click through it, you'll find actual ppl's dna and thus if you use it as a source you could potentially shine a light on them in irl. So deal with it with care pls :)

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/robesonconcamericanindian/activity-feed Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I actually think I can't use familytreeDNA as a source, i've been looking at studies on them but they mostly discuss medical things about the lumbee

thank you for reaching out though, i looked through it and the results for mtDNA seem to be ~98% non-native minimum, i think, based on the page counts Kotthu (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

actually i misread, these first ones seem to be hispanics? it seems they have 5 individuals with DNA matching the controls, which is like 99.5% non-amerindian mtDNA maybe Kotthu (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Their names are there, Grooms, Rivera, Johnson etc. For mt-dna in the A category. Also where I'm from American/West-European race theory or what to call it is illegal, ppl connect it with Hitler and pretty foreign idea. So I broadly know from wikipedia what an 'Hispanic' is supposed to be but doubt I'd be able to tell them appart from Egyptians, Israelis, French etc. if I met one and they dressed and spoke the same as these other groups. :D So I'm not the correct judge to say what 'race' hehe, also remeber there is no autosomal dna, so those haplogroups could be recent or ancient or anything between. :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Bc we lack autosomal dna, we can't for example distinguish, were there originally from the start this dna mix or was there first an mestizo type population that then took in ex-slaves etc and so on. Questions that affect how one sees their legitimacy on the claims. For exampe the Iroquois adopted captured ppls, that would probably show in their dna, but makes them no less native etc :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

oh i've actually seen their autosomal DNA, it was sourced from a similar testing company as these people got it, it was mostly european with some angolan-like admixture, but i think neither that nor this is citable on wikipedia Kotthu (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be cool to cite though, but yeah for me its the personal details that raise the red flags. Yeah the bulk of their dna seems to be mixed European and African. Like my ppl have only 5% Uralic dna left on avg., but are still very much Uralic. Lumbee don't seem to have a native language except English, which sorta means their identity is up for ppls interpertations, dividing scholars etc. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

is there anything you'd like me to clarify? i've read a lot of sources on them

with finnish people the uralic is still very obvious WRT language/admixture/Y-DNA for example, as well as shared admixtural patterns with other uralic people

though we can't really use DNA to make direct inferences on wikipedia, secondary sources can, which is what is typically cited Kotthu (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I said what I wished on the Lumbee, its in your hands now.

Dunno myself yet if this has been up ended so don't wana seem like a noob the moment I learned something new haha :D Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

no worries, thank you for reaching out Kotthu (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nice wiki didn't add the middle part, no matter, add to the genetics stuff of finns if you feel like you have something to add :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

i'll check it out Kotthu (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- Otherwise (Talk?) 02:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, i removed it because it wasn't really relevant to the article itself - lohanas are actually not referred to as high caste per se on their own article, so i figured someone added that after the fact on this article which isn't even about lohanas, it honestly felt quite strange to read a caste referred to as high in a wikipedia article, for example "high caste brahmin" or "high caste khatri" isn't a typical thing you'd read in an encyclopedia

please advise if wiki policy differs, if it's due to # of edits, that's fine Kotthu (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

While I emphasize with your reasoning, it is currently policy that you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days to make edits regarding social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. That is the main reason I reverted your edit. Thank you for your understanding! If you wish to make a change, you may want to make a request on the article's talk page. I submitted a request for it to receive 500/30 protection which it likely should've already had. Thanks again! - Otherwise (Talk?) 02:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

ok sure, no problem Kotthu (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again! - Otherwise (Talk?) 02:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Alabama Creole people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bigblackmokeyboy (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

was this a bot edit? i removed information i added myself, and gave reasoning Kotthu (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alabama Cajans, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Kotthu (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)