Open main menu

... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.


Sorry for causing you problems. And well done fighting vandalism. Good luck.

Banafar casteEdit

The source cited in the article claims banafar brothers with combined Rajput and ahir background (which is false) but still let's consider it as true for sometime then also how can you say that whole Banafar community became "Ahirs" .For example if someone from Brahmin caste marries a Rajput boy ,does that mean that whole Brahmin became Rajputs just because of that 1 single marriage? Come to central India and check yourself ,I myself belong to banafar clan .How can some clain be both Rajput and ahir at the same time ? I hope your page stop spreading baseless claims by some extremist caste based groups and I hope you stop encouraging them .I have complained this issue to the admin Mr. Utkarshraj too .False information is being spread through your page .I hope you do some study before posting such baseless and unverified claim .Atleast open the source used as reference and try to understand it .Thank you . Thakur Singh (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently admin Mr. Utkarshraj is the same as User:Utcursch. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC).
First time I have heard of Alf Hiltebeitel described as an "extremist caste group"! - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation of PariharEdit

I have reverted your edit to Parihar, vide WP:CATVER: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. For example, a politician (not convicted of any crime) should not be added to a category of notable criminals". If you wish for the article to be in the category please discuss on the article's talk page and help build a consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Strategy recommendations summaryEdit

So, I remember someone (I think it was you? Or maybe someone else on your talk page?) saying on a talk page that the "Strategy Recommendations" were too long for them to read. Assuming it was you: I attempted to summarize the, ah, less messed-up parts of the recommendations at m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations#Summary, which I hope might be helpful. If it wasn't you, sorry for interrupting. :) --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Well than what do you consider reliable a neo modern source tell me the facts that i give are all very well documented in ancient,modern and neo,modern so just tell me that what era do you want my sources to be from i think i can manage will pre mughal era do Yoohooyoo (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well mr rather than edit warring if you were to do your research the author of the source given by me on the page awan is named sher muhammad awan and he was a respected historian of the awan tribe and a well published author in his native country and he died in early 1982 rather than the 1967 you are creating out of the blue just to spite and edit war with me now give a solid credible reason or leave it alone and i shall restore my edit Yoohooyoo (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

See the article talk page. Here. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Identifying a building from a photoEdit

Nothing to do with Wikipedia but does anyone know how I could go about identifying a country house-style building from a 1960s photo? I have three or four family photos from that period which I think are taken somewhere in Norfolk but my mother reckons must be in North Wales (we do, at least, agree on the first three letters of the location!). I've tried dragging and dropping into Google Images, and my dad wasn't a particularly imaginative photographer so I should think his camera-pointing was done from a fairly common position. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends on photo resolution. If you post them online (or send them to me) in high resolution, I could try to help. Assuming you don't know the specific possible address (in which case the house may be still standing - possible google street view check) - the first thing to do is to look for signs, street numbers, and any other text that may identify the location (including - license plates - see Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom - there are codes for each office, and you'd assume most vehicles are local). This sleuth work requires a magnifying glass for a photo, or zooming in really close for a high-quality digital photo. You should also look for geographic features in the background - e.g. if you are able to ascertain the north/south/east/west orientation of the photo (e.g. via sun or other cue - and if you have a few photos at different times of day but same photo angle - you can make a rather strong bingo here (e.g. if you have 3 photos - one with a left shadow, one with a right, and one with a short forward shadow in the center - you are looking (if in northern hemisphere) north. If you have a short reverse shadow - you are looking south) and you are able to see the sea in the background - you'd have an easy way to discriminate between Norfolk (I'm assuming East Anglia, not Virginia - which would be easier actually) and North Wales (as the sea is in an opposite direction - at least if you have an east/west coast line). You can also reverse-image search the house itself - but - if it's a generic house you might not get too far. The key is usually first looking at background details in the images themselves and trying to sleuth off of what is available in the photo - often unrelated to the main object itself. If you have other photos from the same time period and location - they can help as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If it's a UK country house, Giano will probably recognise it if you post it here. (If it was North Wales, it's probably Erddig or Plas Newydd (Anglesey). North Wales isn't overburdened with English-style country houses; the fashion there was for mock-Tudor or stone edifices that looked like Scottish castles.) Stupid question but have you just looked on the Welsh/Norfolk tourist board websites to see if it appears in any of the photos there? ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, "country house" doesn't mean what you think it means. ‑ Iridescent 07:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush is using "country house-style building" - which seems a step below English country house - however if it is one of the major ones - then yes - rifling through the known ones in North Wales or Norfolk - would be much faster than what I am suggesting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I've uploaded three of them to GDrive. Crap photos and it might seem a bit silly but they form part of a set of family slides and are the only ones that might indicate the year (we know where we went on holidays and in what years, so if the place can be identified we will get the year). - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
shot of upper lake - same structure on opposite bank as in [1]
shot taken in 1964 of West frontage (angle more center - your dad was to the left of this)
more modern shot of this side (West frontage) of the house
Clearly Sandringham House. Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, dammit! Excellent spot. No idea why I didn't recognise it - I've even hobnobbed with royalty on a few occasions! So, that's the year we camped at West Runton, then. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Kaikalas and kaikolar were same casteEdit

Kaikolars in Andhra Pradesh were called as Kaikalas. In Andhra pradesh OBC list, the word Kaikolar and Kaikalas or Karikalabakthalu were listed as Same caste(Group- B, vocational, caste no.9)

In wikipedia there is separate page for Kaikalas and Kaikolar. Please made Kaikalas and Kaikolar in single page

Reference: Tiruchengode (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You can propose a WP:MERGE of the two articles and see if you get consensus for your view. However, please note that the lists of OBCs, ST/SCs etc are not usually considered to be reliable and often are outright ambiguous, which is one reason why there have been over 1200 official changes to the OBC list alone since it was introduced. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The word Kaikolar is a tamil word. In telugu slang it is pronounced as Kaikala Tiruchengode (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir please see this source Kaikala or Kaikkala is an alternative spinning for Kaikolar Tiruchengode (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it really isn't much good posting this stuff here. It needs to be in a formal merge proposal as explained at WP:MERGE. Also, please note that the book you have just linked is not reliable because it is published by Gyan - see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan for some background to that. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this is reliable source Tiruchengode (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that is also published by Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Citations removal.Edit

Bro you said citations needs to have all the author details and ISBN number etc etc. And did provided those this time. Then why were they removed? HinduKshatrana (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are referring to your recent addition of sources at Yadu and elsewhere. As I said in my edit summary, please see the information at WP:OVERCITE. You were adding a lot of additional, unnecessary citations and (although I didn't say it) some of those were unreliable also, eg: the "states" series of The People of India is not considered reliable even though the "national" series (which was published by Oxford University Press) is ok. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Biharis in martial raceEdit

Hi! You removed Biharis from the Martial race list with the justification that they weren't mentioned however, this quote seems to contradict that:

"For any traveller on the roads of Bihar, an inescapable image comes to mind. That of a peasant who always keeps his wooden club or lathi at hand, under no circumstances letting it out of his reach. The Biharis, who constitute a martial race in India similar to the Sikhs or the Pathans, in keeping with the role conceived by the British colonial administration, were a mother lode for Monghol and English army recruiters. Their independent fighting spirit, which has earned them a reputation for toughness, has been in evidence throughout their history."

Source (which you removed for some reason): Servan-Schreiber, Catherine (1998). "Indian Epics of the Terai Conquest: The Story of a Migration". Diogenes. doi:10.1177/039219219804618106.

And here is a screenshot which is taken directly from the source itself: In anticipation that you will likely claim the source is "not reliable", I will advise you to take note that the article was published in Diogenes (journal) which is supported by UNESCO. This in and of itself doesn't make it reliable but showcases its status. I eagerly await your response! (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I read the sources, thanks. There were two and neither said that they were classified as a martial race by the Brits. That is what the article is about, not whether some group of people have been described as warlike in some random academic paper. We get this all the time with India stuff: everyone seems to think they can prove they are descended from warriors and gods - it's nonsense, usually for glorification purposes. Just because a source uses a word or term does not mean it applies to an article that also uses the same word or term: context is everything. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, one particular give-away in the quote you show above is the tense. The Brits are long gone from India, along with their weird attempts at social engineering etc, but you quote uses "martial race" in the present tense. Since the classification died with the British Raj, "The Biharis, who constitute a martial race in India" cannot apply to the article. And even the Brits classified by caste, which they saw as being at the heart of everything, and not by region: there are many castes in Bihar. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
We have a list of "martial races"? --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sort of but only in the context of the silly British classification - Martial race. The lists therein are repeatedly altered with no regard for the sources and for reasons that I am sure you can guess! - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The list is sourced to one book, so its accuracy is probably dubious. Shouldn't we just drop it? --regentspark (comment) 16:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You could try but the author has taken it from the official 1925 British Class List, per their footnote. There is also a secondary list at the article, which is not sourced to that book. I suspect you will meet with resistance. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewari MLAEdit

You are wrong. no new election has held in Haryana since 2014. Edit was related to Legislative assembly elections, not Parliament elections...parliament elections took place but legislative(mla) elections are schedules in later part of the year...You are changing edits without having proper knowledge of Haryana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnywonderful (talkcontribs) 11:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Sir. It seems you changed my edit. The editings I made are based on facts and I provided references. its a common knowledge in Haryana that gurgaon district is considered part of Ahirwal region and Ahirwati is one of the language spoken there. I could have removed other languages mentioned but I did not even though most of those languages are not native and spoken mostly by migrant groups..but as Gurgaon is now a global city having people from different parts of world, I chose not to remove other languages mentioned, but you don't even allow me to write the name of local language/dialect spoken in gurgan, which is ahirwati language.It wasn't my point of view but its a fact that Ahirwati is one of the regional language of gurgaon, which can be considered mixture of Haryanvi as well as rajasthani..gurgaon is close to rajasthan so rajasthani have some influence And you are talking about references and how unreliable they are..ok forget the references I provided...the language section of gurgaon have 2 references and both of those references mentions ahirwati is one of the language spoken in Gurgaon...I did not added those references, the referfences mentions ahirwati but the wiki article does not...but using same refrences it mentions other dialects like mewati, haryanv...mewati in spoken in mewat district of haryana(nuh)..very few speakers in gurgaon...Ahirwati has more native speakers than both Haryanvi and Mewati in Gurgaon.

So using those 2 references its okay to mention mewati, haryanvi etc, but not ok to ahirwati when references clearly says ahirwati is spoken in gurgaon? Its a common knowldedge in haryana that Gurgaon is considered part of Ahirwal region and ahirwali dialect is spoken..even the wiki pages of parts of gurgaon district like pataudi, sohna, manesar, farrukhnagar says that they are part of ahirwal region...I did not edited those pages to say they are part of ahirwal region.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnywonderful (talkcontribs) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Ahirwati article, which redirects to the Mewati one, has been the subject of a prolonged bout of sockpuppetting. I'm not sure if you are aware of it but someone has formally accused you of being yet another sock and an investigation is open. I'm not prepared to waste time on this until that investigation is resolved because I'm absolutely fed up of people being deceitful in pursuit of undermining this project to gain some sort of traction for their personal opinion. If the investigation comes back clear then I'll revisit things but right now I've not even read the wall of text above beyond noting which article it relates to. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your revert of on this day pictureEdit

I would like a rationale. It's interesting, relevant, and harmless. Also unless I find a 101 newspaper references, it will be gone in a week?--Nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave a rationale in my original edit summary. You then re-added the thing instead of discussing. Loads of articles have appeared several times on the main page and I can't think of one where we incorporate a screencap of the appearance in the article itself. It is navel-gazing and we're neither a reliable source nor is it relevant to whether an article is notable etc. I think you are out of your depth, sorry: you're floundering in attempts to find anything that might prevent deletion but you seem to have very little idea of our policies or conventions etc. It really probably does not help that you have a conflict of interest and I am appalled that you have been canvassing both on- and off-wiki: you say that the editing interface has changed in your absence, which I presume means you are now using VisualEditor, but core policies have changed very little over many years. People have tried to explain and provided links to policy etc but it doesn't seem to be sinking in and now you're casting aspersions etc at the AfD also, questioning peoples' motivations. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your critique. You and others are making up rules as you go along and ignoring precedent and your own practices. I am rusty about WP in-fighting, but I used to be pretty good at it. It took me a while to remember how to do it, but some of the old reflexes are returning. I'm not done yet. There is reason to believe that I will prevail, or I would not go on.
As to the picture: Please source a guideline or policy that supports your removal. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS. No-one but you has challenged the removal and you were the one who added the thing in the first place. Since you are so keen on WP:IAR, try that for size, too. Not to forget WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:OR, WP:RS and, which should exist, WP:IDIOTIC. None of this is about in-fighting but if you start from a position of having a self-admitted COI and then repeatedly assume bad faith about people's motives etc, as you have done, then you have to anticipate kickback. Your stirring "I will prevail, or I would not go on" suggests that a read of WP:IDHT might come in handy, too. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Wrote over my t/p, few days back that he is a fierce advocate, and things get nasty fast with those who conflict him. Shall I shudder in fear?   WBGconverse 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
[2] - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nemonoman: Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on notable subjects, but notability and verifiability have not been carefully scrutinized in every Wikipedia article, which is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and why using appearances on Wikipedia to argue that something is notable or significant is Circular reasoning. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that using On this day to establish notability was an error. I removed the lame attempts at citing WP as a source. However, showing the picture in itself seems interesting and harmless.
Also, I know I am a tenacious advocate of my own positions, and I recognize (often too late) that I get personal and my comments can be offensive. I don't easily take offense, so I don't often don't recognize that my words may offend. When it is brought to my attention, I am anxious to apologize and make amends.
My comment to Godrick was based on my concern that his purge of 12 Meher Baba articles had questionable motivation. I am still concerned about this, and I'm considering my options.
This Silence Day AFD seemed to start as clearcut debate, but I see now that many of the participants have very different views than mine. I've been thinking hard about the matters being raised, and I think I have some reasonable and highly justifiable thoughts on AFDs and notability. I think others may see things my way, if not on this AFD, on future ones. Godric has already noticed that I'm working on an essay on my sandbox, and you are also invited to see progress. (If you have thoughts please express them on my talk page rather than changing the sandbox, however. It's a work in progress. FYI, I am including one of your comments in my current draft.)--Nemonoman (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the time to get involved with the essay, but I will say this. Wikipedia has a lot of material that can broadly be classified as "puffery"; this ranges from intentional, undisclosed, paid editing, to WP:FANCRUFT added by overenthusiastic enthusiasts. Cleaning this out is a very necessary task, and one that several of us perform. From where you are sitting it may look like WBG is targeting you; but that's not the case, and you need to recalibrate before you make accusations that could lead to further drama. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think WBG is targeting me, but he does appear to have it in for certain type of article, which he mentions explicitly. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I glanced at your Sandbox essay and have no intention of getting involved unless and until you actually try to do something with it. However, you are making personal attacks in the thing and I doubt that is ok even in user space. Please review WP:NPA. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Puffery now, guideline later, maybe. There are lots of helpful but non-approved guidelines floating around.
However I am concerned by you describing personal attacks, and if you can point out examples, I will fix them. It would be a generous thing, but I have no reason to expect this favor. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The entire thing reas like an attack against WBG, and accusing them of being snide is dodgy. If you have a problem with WBG's actions then the appropriate venue is most likely WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Noted, with thanks. I will review and correct. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lyn Ott AFDEdit

I agree, delete. But I wanted to mention with appreciation your objective descriptions, and your efforts to find some other mentions beyond the silly refs in the article. Thank you. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sitush".