:::::::::That's fine. Have a think, although I do not believe that there is any controversy at all if you exclude SPAs and drive-by IPs. In the interval, although I agree that the articles should not be deleted (and this is where I believe your recent involvement originated), I do hold the opinion that you should revert those reinstatements of content where they apply to articles concerning ethnic/caste origin. Those articles get out of control very quickly. We have a clear situation that we can re-revert to, ie: yours. And there is very clear evidence that where I have been involved there has been a more than reasonable degree of work before removal of the entries. It is up to you whether you bother or not, but if you do then you will see a lot of the individually linked articles had edits from me during the process of fixing the lists - I did more than a little background stuff. FWIW, regarding the Jewish issue, that is in fact one of the primary markers and it has been raised by numerous people in connection with this caste issue. Those people include face-to-face conversations at the last Wikimeet that I attended (worthless in itself because not written down, but most were experienced admins etc). WT:INB is a suitable venue for what is a complex and "localised" issue but if you decide that you would prefer to see it discussed at more general venue then that is fine by me. What I want to avoid for now is a situation where the cruft reappears, the BLP vios (my viewpoint) resurface, and yet more is added. Not many people patrol these things and the idea of having to start over is completely dis-spiriting. If the preceding sounds rude or whatever then I apologise as that is not my intent. I have had a rather bad day of non-consensus/socks/meats/legal threats/edit warring/blah-blah and will be shortly heading for slumberand! -