User talk:Sitush/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Sitush, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII

Delivered on 5 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester February Newsletter, Issue XIV

Delivered on 1 February 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester March Newsletter, Issue XV

Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

I am the person - moved here from somewhere else

'I am the person who has done most of the recent edits. I have MA & BA (1) in history, from University of Cambridge. I think generally the standard of verifiability expected at WP cf academia is akin to the different burdens of proof which exist at various levels of the UK court system. However, I do resent your tone. You appear to be good with flowery language and there is no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge of your subject: why not put it to good use instead of attacking people? I'm getting frustrated, sorry, Sitush (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)'

These are seriousl accusations. What do you mean by 'my tone'? What exactly do you define as ‘attacking’? Can you name names in this context? By the way, one of your main secondary sources for Churchills is seriously wrongly cited.Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem: you keep being destruction rather than constructive in your criticism. I do not understand your attitude at all. It is self-serving. Why not say *which* secondary source if seriously wrongly cited or, better still, fix the problem? We are all human, apart from the idiot bots that so plagued your early experience here. Since the work you describe as a "farrago" etc is almost entirely that of myself, I think the language you use is "attacking". You withdraw "farrago" etc and I'll withdraw "attack". Your "tone" *is* that you "attack". You simply are not getting it, are you? I suspect that you'll be banned from WP before much longer unless you moderate your comments. Just my view. Sitush (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Farrago, a jumble or a confused mixture of things: in other words, your narrative does not flow and it is therefore reminiscent of a list of facts: just my view. Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are insulting my intelligence and, as so often in your recent contributions all over the WP arena, are also being obtuse. You cannot kid a kidder. I know what the words you used mean. You are forgetting that this is a work in progress and not yet polished, being done to stop your request for the entire entry to be removed on your proposed grounds that it is incapable of further research. And you still have not answered my query above the wrong citation nor have you addressed the issue of being constructive rather than destructive. I despair of your desire to be a decent Wikipedia contributor, so KEEP OFF MY PAGE. If you don't like it, go look at some other website. Sitush (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Assume good faith and leave it at that. This discussion has become far too personal - but I forgive you. 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC) ps which is your page, just so I'll know not to trespass upon it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs)

You keep quoting AGF at everyone also. I've not seen one instance since 29 December, in your numerous writings on WP, where you have demonstrated good faith, so the idea of assuming it has run thin. There comes a time when actions speak louder than words. As for which page: this one. Twit. And wind-up merchant, I suspect. Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember Arnie? Weiterbewegung (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

|Arnie who? I see that you left us as obtusely as you arrived. A sort of Boltonian Man of Mystery? <g> Sitush (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Churchill Machine Tool Company

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK. Looks like the page got well over a 1000 hits while it was in the DYK section of the main page. I think that fairly soon this article ought to go for Good Article review and then Featured Article not too long after. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, and I'm pleased to see you are repairing all of my disasters :) DYK was a surprise, especially so soon after it was AfD and the article's creator reckoned there was nothing more to be discovered about the company. However, GA is probably pushing it: there are a couple of WP:SYN issues I need to resolve (I know I'm right!); I can find nothing about Churchill-Milne and next to nothing about Newcast Foundries; and I wouldn't have a clue about the opening paragraph except for some smart-alec remark about the turnaround from bankruptcy to roaring success in not a lot of time. Phoenix-like, eh? I've put a request in for some info if anyone can find a copy of the Dict of Business Biography but really want a copy of Churchill's own book, which I'll still be wanting come next Christmas unless I get back to work.

BTW, I can't believe the mistakes I am finding in peer-reviewed, professional historical work - truly a case of verifiable untruths. I've dealt with one, since Rolt is dead anyway but there are at least a couple of other glaring issues that I'm just having to leave alone. Sitush (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Rolt - Red for Danger is one of my favourite books - but when I saw that this work was commissioned by Churchills you do have to wonder if he was going to be totally objective. There are two copies of the Churchill book on Abebooks.co.uk but the cheapest is £27.50! A bit much for a 50 page booklet. If you don't want to go for GA a peer review might be a good idea instead, someone might come up with a brilliant lead paragraph. I wouldn't sya I'm putting right any disasters, just a bit of wikigoming to help out. You've got an expert (don't be bashful about it) knowledge of the subject and how to write it, I've got some technical knowledge about putting it into wikipedia, that's what it's all about. NtheP (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

He's not bad usually, although some historians like our late lamented friend sometimes sneer at his populism. As I said on the article talk page, I think he has got his guns mixed up - right idea, wrong gun: the Gatling was around well before the Maxim. Or, just as likely, he wasn't diligent and just accepted what he was told to keep the customer happy. I wrote 90% of a company history for John Menzies before I went to uni (then someone else nobbled it and got his name on the book!) but, honestly, I knew nowt about Churchill before the start of this month except that I've seen and even used their kit way back when. I'm really concerned about the WP:SYN issue cos it could take out a whopping chunk of interesting info re: patents that I know is correct, but let's get the easy stuff sorted while I think about it and perhaps I might even stumble across something along the way. Stopping now anyway - not slept for abt 40 hours.Sitush (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, isn't that amazing: 1.5K views yesterday and 400-ish today. Who would have thought it? I don't think I've ever looked at the WP home page in all my years (or, actually, all WP's 10 years). I do understand how teasers etc work but, blimey. Of course, at least 25% of the 400 today will be me going back and forth. Tbh, I'm more interested in getting a decent article up there than about who actually reads it. That sounds a bit narcissistic but it is investing in the future for when someone does really want to look something up and then can find a (hopefully) half-decent reference point. And it is probably in a small way outing the history nerd in me that really should have done a PhD but was convinced that he could cope in the real world (I can't cos of the deafness, but it's too late now - I should have listened to Maurice Cowling etc and their old boy network job offers). Dobson & Barlow next, or perhaps a new article on Sir James Farmer, Norton Ltd. I shall value your kind assistances wherever I go! Sitush (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt Monro

Sitush, the reference for the number ones comes from a piece written by Michelle Monro.

http://www.mattmonro.com/spotlight_aug_2007_michele_monro.html

Vytal (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation of Youth for Christ

If you look through the history, you will see that the article had third party citations until the vandalism started a few hours ago. With two (newly registered) editors pushing their POV, I don't see the point in engaging in an edit war. _WikiMan^One 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did look before adding the template. I agree that there seems to be a war going on. The one does not exclude the other. However, bearing in mind the war I have no intention of getting more involved. I've added a piece on the talk page & made my point: if the warriors choose to ignore it then my consolation is that at least I have tried. From my limited experience, issues of religion and politics, especially those which might be seen to a neutral outsider as being "fundamentalist", are always going to end up with edit warring. And, for the life of me, I rarely can see the notabilty of most of these. But mine not to wonder why ... etc. Thanks for the heads-up. Sitush (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I plan to go in there within a week or so if the edit war has calmed down and see what can be done. I completely agree, the directory is unencyclopedic as it the mission statement. I don't appreciate the criticism section that I wrote being removed without comment, etc. I don't see how it is notably either, but as long as you're going to include it I would like to see it be more NPOV. Darn Christians, don't get along. :P When I do make edits, I may notify you in case I can actually get a discussion started. _WikiMan^One 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to let me know. Religious matters are not my area of expertise but I can see elephants when they are in a room. Sitush (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted on the article's talk page seeking consensus to revert it to the version I had previously written based on coverage in two secondary sources, if you see fit please participate. _WikiMan^One 23:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Disregard previous message, a bureaucrat already moved to do so. :) _WikiMan^One 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've commented anyway. I do not have the alleged gift of "second sight" but can already see where the argument is likely to go re: notability! Let's hope that things at least stabilise but I will say again that this warring is a reason why I tend not to get involved with religious or political articles - it is like trying to square a circle and invariably draws in "believers" who are incapable of attempting NPOV. Sitush (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I like your line of thinking, and your reasoned head is exactly what is needed in these articles! I also tried to address the question of notability on there after you wrote. _WikiMan^One 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Dictionary_of_Business_Biography_and_Who_Was_Who

Are you still looking for the articles/relevant info?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been promised the Who Was Who entries, hence the strike-out, but nothing from the Dictionary of Business Biography. I'm not sure that all of these people will even be in it but would be surprised if none of them were.Sitush (talk)

I'll let you know if I find anything.Smallman12q (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You did find something and I am very grateful to you. That is one very expensive publication! Sitush (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits

Those bot edits to Distance education added links to equivalent articles on other-language Wikipedias. That's perfectly OK to do. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in

Talk:Planned_Parenthood#Discussion _WikiMan^One 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look but the discussion is beyond me, I'm afraid. It seems to me to be another case of US pro- and anti- "fundamentalism", akin to many of the articles on religion. It is a controversial topic regarding which there is unlikely ever to be agreement as to how to present it. I've added a few CNs etc to the article itself, which is easy to do as I am totally neutral in my reading of it, but these might themselves cause more fireworks because the phrasing makes a lot of assumptions which only people involved in the debate in the US would fully appreciate. I've also reverted an edit of one of my contributions: imo, it is not enough to use the phrase "notable cases" (or judgments, or whatever it was) without defining *why* they are notable to a neutral reader. Perhaps if the phrase was changed to "Other [cases/judgements] which have attracted attention are ... " would be better? Sitush (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the word you tagged to "related" which is hopefully better... I hope you will at least check in once in a while with input, I'm trying to take out the simply undue weight criticisms and just summarize them but we will see what happens. _WikiMan^One 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed, and it is. I've added the article to my watchlist. Sitush (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Hollyoaks/GA1

I have reviewed this article and unfortunately had to quickfail it. Sorry you had to wait in line so long for such a depressing result. I note from the talk page that editors are aware of the issues, and if you decide to re-nominate in future after improving the article I would be willing to prioritise your GAR so you don't have to wait in the queue again. Best wishes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead links

Just to let you know, as per WP:DEADLINK:

“ Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line. ”

Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, I see that you found a cached version of an external link at Anglesey Model Village. IMO, it adds nothing to what is already sourced by the other references and the article in question appears primarily to be advertising. Since the "factual information" is already referenced, was there any need to reinstate a cached version of a deadlink? It seems to me to be redundant. Sitush (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion on the grounds of it being a stub article with no contributions in the last 3 years and it being an advert. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Want another controversy?

Try this: Talk:Pro-life, specifically the move request, my logic is on there and I would appreciate your viewpoint either way.

Note, I don't consider this Canvassing because I don't know which way you'll go...

_WikiMan^One 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not canvassing as far as I am concerned either but I am hampered with a lot of these things because they are so "personal" to the USA. I'm not saying that the debates do not go on elsewhere but the sheer ferocity of it, among "everyday" people, tends to be extreme in the US, from my limited experience. A lot of it is, I suspect, connected ultimately to religious belief and I always find this amusing that a nation the government of which is "intent on" (bad choice of words but cannot phrase better right now) weakening religious fundamentalism should permit so much of it within its own compass.

I'll take a look but I am really fed up of what has happened at the PP one. The edit war etc is stupid, ignorant and destructive of the purpose of WP - people cannot even abide by the simplest of civil requests, such as the ones you and I made to try to seek consensus away from the article page. I blame no-one for this but as a window to the world on US attitudes and "belief tactics" it is not a pleasant sight. It happens everywhere, sure, but the scale of it with regard to the organisation in question bewilders me. It is also isolationist: even now, despite my hints, the emphasis is on taking positions and "explaining" things from the POV of the US - it is in fact a much wider issue but much of the rest of the world are excluded from it because people cannot phrase things in a way which is accessible. Wikipedia is a universal source of information, not a US source. Participants should remember that the rest of us do exist. Just my opinion and, yes, it may change. Sitush (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is why I appreciate bringing your viewpoint in, you don't fall into either a "liberal" or "conservative" category in terms of US issues. I do my best to be neutral and all inclusive but I appreciate having someone like you, who's edits I have come to respect, able to offer their opinion on various "hot topic" issues, that really are only hot topics in the US. _WikiMan^One 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Canvassing. JJB 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but I cannot see that it is of relevance to me, thanks. I make my own mind up and you will notice that I have differed from the user in question on two fundamental points: (1) I do not support the rename/move of the "pro-life" article; and (2) from the get-go my argument was for blanking until consensus emerged at PP - the precise same opinion which you have now formed. I'm learning something, though: I am best keeping well away from petty squabbles involving editors with an excess of emotion over common-sense. And keep away from IP editors at all times :) Sitush (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Want another controversy?

Try this: Talk:Pro-life, specifically the move request, my logic is on there and I would appreciate your viewpoint either way.

Note, I don't consider this Canvassing because I don't know which way you'll go...

_WikiMan^One 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not canvassing as far as I am concerned either but I am hampered with a lot of these things because they are so "personal" to the USA. I'm not saying that the debates do not go on elsewhere but the sheer ferocity of it, among "everyday" people, tends to be extreme in the US, from my limited experience. A lot of it is, I suspect, connected ultimately to religious belief and I always find this amusing that a nation the government of which is "intent on" (bad choice of words but cannot phrase better right now) weakening religious fundamentalism should permit so much of it within its own compass.

I'll take a look but I am really fed up of what has happened at the PP one. The edit war etc is stupid, ignorant and destructive of the purpose of WP - people cannot even abide by the simplest of civil requests, such as the ones you and I made to try to seek consensus away from the article page. I blame no-one for this but as a window to the world on US attitudes and "belief tactics" it is not a pleasant sight. It happens everywhere, sure, but the scale of it with regard to the organisation in question bewilders me. It is also isolationist: even now, despite my hints, the emphasis is on taking positions and "explaining" things from the POV of the US - it is in fact a much wider issue but much of the rest of the world are excluded from it because people cannot phrase things in a way which is accessible. Wikipedia is a universal source of information, not a US source. Participants should remember that the rest of us do exist. Just my opinion and, yes, it may change. Sitush (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is why I appreciate bringing your viewpoint in, you don't fall into either a "liberal" or "conservative" category in terms of US issues. I do my best to be neutral and all inclusive but I appreciate having someone like you, who's edits I have come to respect, able to offer their opinion on various "hot topic" issues, that really are only hot topics in the US. _WikiMan^One 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Canvassing. JJB 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but I cannot see that it is of relevance to me, thanks. I make my own mind up and you will notice that I have differed from the user in question on two fundamental points: (1) I do not support the rename/move of the "pro-life" article; and (2) from the get-go my argument was for blanking until consensus emerged at PP - the precise same opinion which you have now formed. I'm learning something, though: I am best keeping well away from petty squabbles involving editors with an excess of emotion over common-sense. And keep away from IP editors at all times :) Sitush (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Galloways article

Hi. Having seen the number of edits you've made recently, it's probably most efficient if I take a look at the article once it's a bit more stable. Could you drop me a note when you're 'done'? Thanks -- EdJogg (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I keep finding stuff! Sitush (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page.

Hey

Thanks for fixing the cite; I actually used that model on another article later but didn't copy it back to the Sting article.

Have you ever created an article for a player before? There are a couple of top prospects I have been contemplating creating the articles for; Nail Yakupov (#10) is surely going to go somewhere in 2012 as one of the top picks, while Alex Galchenyuk (#94) won't be far behind. Right now, I think a focus on an article for Yakupov would be ideal as the only thing that will stop him is a career-ending injury. CycloneGU (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I was just wikignoming. I'm afraid that I've never had any involvement in writing articles about sports teams or players, although one thing I can say for sure is that even without a career-ending injury there is one thing that will stop him. And that's the thing that stops us all & is as sure as taxes! BTW, you probably should take note of the request at the top of the Sting article for citations, and in particular for third party citations. Using stuff just from their website is not really good enough for WP. Maybe you can find things in newspapers/sports mags etc? I'm not very knowledgeable about the sport but if they have any sort of notability at all then there should be references for them elsewhere - and, of course, if you cannot prove notability then the entire article is likely to be deleted at some point. Ouch! Sitush (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I came in to find that note on my first visit to the page and I have been wondering where to get info outside of the Sting site; I have no idea where to look up the historical stuff on the Sting at all. Being one of the 20 teams in the league, I do not doubt that the page will remain, but my fear is more that the page may be reduced to an empty shell or a stub. THAT would be bad indeed.

I looked at Ryan Ellis, currently a player for the Windsor Spitfires, as a model for creating Yakupov's page. I picked up a couple of sources for basic info, but don't know if I can get as detailed as Ellis' page is. I'll take a shot at it and worry about the team page later. CycloneGU (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kylie Jenner

You have much more patience than I do! There is an old AfD on the article, which resulted in a "redirect to the TV show" outcome, which is what I kept reverting to. I only found the article when I was allocating unreferenced BLPs to WikiProjects. It is not the sort of article that I have any interest in, so I'm about to unwatchlist it... much happier knowing that someone else other than just the Huggleusers are going to keep the teenage fans/vandals in check! Thanks for your vigilance. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the notability either, and I certainly have no interest in a fame-grabbing starlet from a fame-grabbing, fecund family. I just came across it when doing some wikignoming of reflists. No worries, though, I'll keep an eye on it for a while& maybe see it through back to AfD or the redirect Sitush (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Masood Kiaei

Never heard of him, and can't find him either... There can be transliteration problems with all these scripts, and translation too in the case of the titles - "nobody remain only" doesn't sound right to me. I see you (or someone) has changed one of the dates. Ta. Iranian dates look very like Islamic ones but they are different (and I can never remember by how much, and seem to think Iranian calendar is fixed, not fluid like the Islamic). I don't think it'll be a great loss if it goes, but I don't like losing writers when the rappers and footballers get away with what they do. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't strike me as a hoax - I've caught quite a few very convincing looking ones before now. One little series about different species, with scientific names, descriptions and all, that was probably the best. I know I shouldn't say this, but I like a good hoax. They can be a challenge. This one just looked too untidy. Most hoaxes are neat, apart from the ones claiming Shaun plays for Real Madrid and has scored 50 goals, and when you look at his DoB you see that he is 12. Here, I think we had someone with level 1 in English. (Better than my level in Farsi... I can cope with Russian and Greek scripts, but when the wigglies come along I give up.) Still, neither of us found anything, and the adnin will have done a check too so probably non-notable. Doesn't seem to be a Farsi Wikipedia, which is odd. The home crowd probably wouldn't be allowed to, but there's enough expats around. (I'll never forget an Iranian friend tasting my pint, and then quickly swapping glasses round because she reckoned mine tasted better than hers. She was right...) Peridon (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks so much!!! for your feedback about the article regarding Gwladys! There are two women: Gwladys ferch Dafydd and Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam. There was a mismatch with the link in Dafydd's article, which I have since corrected.

1. Gwaldys ferch Dafydd (died in 1300s). I had to revert the language in the Gwladys ferch Dafydd to the original verbiage. Your citation corrections were very helpful though for correcting the citations that I made to Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam.

2. Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam (died 1454). a. I corrected the format for the references based on the format you used. So glad to now know how to use the same citation over and over again without creating extra lines!!!! Yeah! b. I didn't see the Wikipedia circular reference but I may have put it somewhere else. c. I tried to make language nuetral - like here having a hard life.

Once the changes are ok, what would be used to replaced the {{unreferenced...}} tag at the top of the article?

Thanks again!!! It looks much better now! CaroleHenson (talk)

Hi, give me a few hours or maybe a day and I'll reply to you fully. Got a bit on at the mo. In between times you can, of course, continue to edit according to the policy of WP:BOLD etc - Sitush 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources

Just letting you know, I'm starting a list of general outcomes of reliable sources User:WikiManOne/RS. You're welcome to add/edit it and use it, I think it'll be quite helpful in discussions to have that available. _WM^O 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I received a message that you had a message for me on your site, but I don't see it. I did like (and in a couple of cases a bit surprised about) the information you posted about reliable sources. So, late for bed. Will catch up tomorrow when I get my changes made.CaroleHenson (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the one just above here, which says I might be a while getting back to you but will do eventually. Out of date now. Nighty-night. -Sitush (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PROD note in Anglesey Model Village

I'm having trouble parsing your concern in the PROD note in Anglesey Model Village. Mention by the BBC would appear to meet NOTE at first glance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it wasn't my PROD. It was user:Themeparkgc who added my name in support. The reason was not on the grounds of notability (although one old, promotional BBC article seems insubstantial) but rather because the article has never been developed and seems to exist for promotional reasons. I accept that the BBC does confer notability but do feel it is one of those times when the WP policies conflict with "common sense": I have relatives who live in the area and for the 40 years have often gone over to visit them, and the thing does not even feature on tourist information leaflets for the area or in, for example, The North Wales News newspaper (not encyclopaedic - I could send you a copy of every leaflet but it is difficult to prove a negative). The guidelines will rule, of course. I accept this. Sorry to have bothered you. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh geez, no bother at all! I was really just curious. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I've discovered what I presume to be an admin, can you give me some advice about what to do with 3RR/conflict of interest/copy-and-paste from source/possible original research .... and umpteen other issues relating to a new user at Hilton_family? Or, at least, point me in the right direction. I've pulled back from it for now for fear of frightening the horses, but did issue two welcome/warning notes + a message on the article talk page beforehand. Hate to bite but am at a loss what to do next. -Sitush (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: the user has now replied on the article talkpage, and I've replied to them. It is as bad as I feared re: OR/COI and I don't think s/he is in the mood to back down. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Request please

Do you mind doing me a favor? I wrote this article and requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CaroleHenson/Shining_Star and haven't had any feedback yet. Do you mind taking a cursory look to see if the article fits Wikipedia content approach?

(I know now it would need me to update the citations.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I know you're busy and went ahead and moved the article to mainspace. I'll await feedback from the general community.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PP History section

I've rewritten the history section on the article, care to take a look and leave comments/edit it for better english, etc.? I would really appreciate it, I'm not very good at catching my own mistakes in writing immediately. _WM^O 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 06:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And replied to your reply. —C.Fred (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

nice job with that

Thanks for handling the edit war, I tend to take the easy way out and let an admin sort it all out. Plus, when the edits have reasonable summaries I usually don't revert since I use my three reverts up anyway! Thanks for helping make it not so much a case of WP:BITE as it was about to be.. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I think it needs rolling back to your last edit. Sitush (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, everything got reverted to back where it was.. good thing, because I'm pretty sure I already have three reverts on that article today. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you need to take a break? Sort of keep your stuff to the talk pages for a bit? I'll be interested to see what Marauder40 comes up with later because right now I'm really not getting the point but clearly there is some sort of point. Seems sensible to try to sort out something in a draft form, so I'd suggest you play along with that and perhaps avoid editing the PP main page for a bit. I'll check that the latest war hasn't done any damage cf what it was when you, me and Marauder left it a few hours ago. Sitush (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm trying not to do many reverts at all but I'm kinda paranoid after I got blocked earlier for a technical violation (two reverts in the immediately passed 24 hours when I was blocked).. I honestly don't understand all Marander is trying to say with the organizations and haven't taken the time to try to figure it out. What I do have a definite opinion on is that the Negro Project is not notable, its a small project of PP's predecessor organization, and lasted a few years at most, if we include that we have to include like 100 other projects for npov. I'm cool with trying the draft though so we'll see how it goes. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I'd recently been vandal patrolling and had reverted dozens of cases of vandalism, I had no idea what "PP" stood for. I believe I was reverting obvious vandalism from a user who'd just recently demonstrated bad faith, POV, OR, etc. (and who was continuing to demonstrate such). I posted a more complete response at the administrator's edit warring noticeboard (currently it's at this section header although that latter link will go invalid when a result is posted). If you'd like to talk further, please respond either on my talk page or over in the relevant section at the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Trainables Movie

I'm thinking I agree with the edit warring editor that that shouldn't be in "see also," I can't imagine why someone looking for information on the current organization is going to care about some video they produced a long time ago and seems to fail notability... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The video is notable enough to have its own article, so I presume you mean that you don't think that article is notable enough for the PP article? Frankly, I'd leave it in there. If only for a bit of peace and quiet. It is doing no harm & in the scale of the article size it is a minute part. I'm more concerned about the commentary connected to it ("trainables") - too many people nowadays do not realise that you have to view the past using the eyes of the past as well as of the present. "Trainables" is an archaic term and I can see people misinterpreting it as being some sort of evidence of PP insensitivity etc, when in fact back in the day it was the normal term. Just like I used to be called deaf-and-dumb or people with cerebral palsy were called spastics - times, and language/terminology, change. Its like the recent spate of apologies for slavery here and in the US: I'm sorry, but I really do not see how someone living now can sincerely apologise for something in which neither they nor at least 3 previous generations had any involvement - the video is as much an anachronism as the apologies, but ppl wanted it. Anyway, how the "trainables" word is interpreted is the reader's look-out, not mine. They can think what they want as long as the info is presented. If you want to balance things then find a modern video, but honestly I do not think it worth the effort and aggravation. Sitush (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

*butting in* Rather than keep it in "see also," why can't it be integrated into the expanding "history" section? Alternately, if there are other notable videos (and there probably are ones that are as notable as or more notable than "Trainables") then they could have articles, and a "videos" section in the main article would summarize that content and link to the articles on individual videos. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do the legwork (fingerwork?) to find a balanced selection then it's probably an ok idea. But just putting the one slap-bang in the middle of the history section would, I suspect, be undue weight - certainly it would be without some copious explanations about anachronistic terminology. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense - it's certainly not omg so notable that this one video needs a mention. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How about making a Planned Parenthood category? That way PP, IPPF, Sanger, "Trainables," the "stings" against PP, etc. could all be linked, without having to lend anything undue weight in an article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm easy about it. Personally, I don't use category pages (or the links to them) except when absolutely necessary, eg: the maintenance pages. I can see some sense in what you say but wouldn't know where to start without reading up about it. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I made one. (Category:Planned Parenthood) How does it look? Anything missing? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look later but I'm sure it is fine. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (Long lists)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And I've replied again. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is the red message box better now? I moved it down a bit; I suspect different browsers render it differently. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Argentina/Changes

Hi

What maintenance list is it giving errors to? I have added the no bots tl - was it coming from there? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It really does not need fixing lol - why can people not see the "no bots" and assume that it will be ok without the reflist, it is clearly a subpage - the page will not be there in 2 or 3 or hours and in the meantime we have to keep scrolling down past a reflist we don't need or want...Chaosdruid (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because this is precisely the purpose of userspace / sandboxes? It is confusing: I don;t think many ppl will check for no bots because that is what bots check, not humans.<g> It seems to have disappeared off the list at the mo, anyway. Sitush (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup - because another user "corrected" it while I was trying to work out a way of not displaying it - hidden doesn't work, my first try (and got an ec from the other user putting it in again while we were messaging lol). Anyway I have put it in a drop-down and that seems to have fooled the system for now :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxes are ok, but when collaborating with three other users or more on a central issue it helps to have it in an easily accessible page, esp with newer editors. Still get problems with wiki markup in sandbox pages. I just tested it by deleting the reflist from my sandbox page and it appears on the cat for missing reflist - it doesnt even give the right page though as it lists it as my talk page!

It also helps keep stats in check - it gets really boring when I make 100 edits on the pieces in my sandbox and then I get 1 credited article stat when I paste it onto the page rather than 101, and if that is three editors collaborating then thats 3x those lost numbers. Once a year these central edits pages are better all round and especially for newer editors...I know it might seem petty, or even trivial, but if you look at the RfA pages people really do go into the "your ratio of userspace to article edits is too small", "your ratio of talk page to article edits is too high" etc

(For my own edits I have about 1/7 of my edits in my user space) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (Edit History cleared)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New messages

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Guoguo12's talk page.
Message added 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12--Talk--  02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very new to wikipedia in an editing sense...I have done some minor edits before I ever registered, but usually only grammar and content. I am in the process of overhauling, from a content standpoint, the The Tejas Club wiki. I hope after I do that, you will then be able to have more luck editing the look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleRyanCarpenter (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Balmoral

Thanks for your note. Its been on my radar for ages as its the most-viewed article in the Scottish castles wikiproject. Far from being a problem, your hacking gave me timely kick to get on with some improvements, which I will continue as I get chance. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Casey Clabough

Hi Sitush,

I hope this works--I'm really new to Wikipedia and not really computer oriented. I was working (as poor as the content updates were) on Casey Clabough's page, as per his request. I am his graduate assistant. I noticed that you reverted the page back to its original content and established that the photo--which I got from him--was in violation of copyright laws. Since you seem to know what you are doing, would you mind telling me what I can do to show that I am not violating copyright? Also, I was trying to figure out how to do references, but alas you reverted the article mid-figuring.

Thanks,

Shweetdeal27 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)shweetdeal27

No problem, we're all new once. I'm still learning! However, in this particular case I would advise you not to edit the Casey_Clabough article. There is a Wikipedia policy concerning conflict of interest and your position means that you are likely to breach it. All the more so because you are new to the project. You can read up on in at WP:COI.

As far as copyright goes, the relevant policies are at WP:Copyright - I'm not going to summarise these two things because it will serve little purpose, but feel free to ask for clarification of their content.

Citations: there are templates available to do this and they take much of the "grunt work" out of it. The templates exist for various things - books, websites, newspapers, journals etc - and you can copy & paste a blank template into the relevant part of a page and then fill in the blanks. Give me a couple of hours and I'll set something up to show you. I did wonder why you were using all those "sup" tags - they aren't necessary: the software will automatically number the things and renumber them if an extra citation ends up getting place between two existing ones at a later date. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See User:Sitush for citation templates, and links to the full articles explaining what all the terms are (you do not need to fill in every term within a template, but some of them will be necessary) - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

hi, i'd like to inform you that the photo that I put on Lucille Teasdale-Corti page has been authorized by the Corti-Teasdale Foundation following Wikipedia issues. this is the email that I received from the Foundation(I'm sorry it's in italian, hope you understand!) : "Gentile dott.ssa Rabotti, 

le confermo la possibilità di usare le immagini in questione per le voci relative a Lucille Teasdale e Piero Corti su Wikipedia secondo il modello standard di liberatoria da lei segnalato (email in calce).Un cordiale saluto,

Chiara Paccaloni

Fondazione Piero e Lucille Corti Onlus P.za Velasca 6, 20122 Milano Tel./Fax: +39 02 80.54.728 www.fondazionecorti.it"

Who are you? In any event, you need to add this info to the picture at Commons, then you can use it. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Interstate Van Lines

Hello Sitush, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Interstate Van Lines, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: If all those awards don't qualify as "important", then I do not know what does. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely that depends whether the awards are significant in their own right. Didn't appear to be to me. I've got loads of awards but wouldn't dare claim notability. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 is not about notability. It refers to the assertion of importance, which this article does do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. I was just making a point to you. I do not consider it to be important and I do not consider the awards to be notable. I'm working on the article right now, trying to bring it up to spec. It will probably end up at AfD again though because now that I've read the citations that were already there, they are even less important than I first thought. It is pathetic, tbh. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:CharleenT

Hi Sitush, I've looked through the history of User talk:CharleenT following an OTRS email. In regard to the article created by the user, I agree with your comments, and I've deleted the article and talk page. However, I'm puzzled by your response to the user blanking her own user talk page. I'm not aware of any policy preventing users from blanking their own user talk page, and so have blanked the page. Also, I think your description of the article as a 'crackpot scheme' was unnecessary. The response by the author was to describe your actions as 'unprofessional'. In my honest opinion, your reply of 'no-one is a professional here' wasn't especially appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I lost it a bit there. I've been helping some newbies recently and they have appreciated it (one has just got a DYK) but in this case CharleenT got under my scheme. I don't think calling it "crackpot" broke WP:CIVIL - I've seen far worse said by admins etc - but I accept your interpretation, which appears to be that it did. My point about "professional" was that she seemed to be under the impression that I was some sort of official of WP and, of course, I am not. She was also under the misapprehension that all the template being used were coming from me, ie: she was ignoring the bot and user sigs on them. The reason for reinstating the first message on her talk page (but not the rest of it) was because it contained the welcome notice along with all the useful info that she could read, and desperately needed to read if she was to understand what was going on. I suppose I could have just reposted the message.

It's a one-off. I actually apologised to her for the fact that her first article was going to CSD, even though I had not nominated it. At that point I thought things could be turned round. Also, I did try to apologise at the end for what had gone on since & I did make it clear from the outset that the "crackpot" thing was my opinion, not WP's. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Trempealeau, Wisconsin

Hi! The village and town of Trempealeau, Wisconsin are 2 separate municipalities. We have been through this before with other merger proposals involving the various town and villages in Wisconsin as well as cities and towns. In several cases there were mergers that were mistakenly done only to be reverted. You may want to read the Political subdivisions of Wisconsin to get a better idea. You may also want to rescind your merger proposal regarding the town and village involving the 2 municipalities named Trempealeau, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the basis for delineating areas in the US is municipality rather than geography? OK, although it differs from how a lot of other locales are dealt with in other countries' entries. But, out of interest, it seems from the articles that the village is inside the town (sort of, "land-locked"). If this is correct then would it make sense to clarify that they are nonetheless distinct municipal entities and that this is the criteria being used? - we're not all inhabitants of the US and may not grasp this subtlety. Writing from a village in Wales, which has its own entry but is not a municipality! ... <g> - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that a bot wrote the various Wisconsin municipalities articles to provide some accuracy in wording. In the beginning several editors have tried to reread some of the articles. In Wisconsin the municipalities themselves can create confusion. In Douglas County, Wisconsin, there are 3 municipalities named: Superior. The city, town, and village. All 3 are separate municipalities and with a few miles of each other. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Still, the bot does not seem to have done a great job if there have been multiple proposals for merger due to the lack of understanding. Perhaps it is a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi !

Is the start of my article now better ? Thx for your help ! Claire Deschamps (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Do you need any help with the formating etc? I could do a bit for you and then you could see how to make it look better on the screen. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (Banner notice…)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at VQuakr's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your help

The page is a working progress.Of course I am always looking for some help I am new to wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graf64 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sitush is there a way in which I can contact you through email? Graf64 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush,

This concerns Tissa Wijeratne MD. You list him as being board certified. My friend tried to find this person for assistance. It has revealed that he is not a board certified neurologist in the US. My friend has suffered a stroke and it is misleading that to say he is board certified. He wasted his time trying to locate this doctor to find out he had no US qualification. This is why I am so upset. I do not want anyone to be put in my friend's situation and find out that this doctor does not have the qualification that Wiki alludes to.

Righteous elephant Righteouselephant (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Craft

I already declined a speedy once today. Feel free to AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tissa Wijeratne qualification is false

Dear Sitush,

This concerns Tissa Wijeratne MD. You list him as being board certified. My friend tried to find this person for assistance. It has revealed that he is not a board certified neurologist in the US. My friend has suffered a stroke and it is misleading to say that he is board certified. He wasted his time trying to locate this doctor to find out he had no US qualification. This is why I am so upset. I do not want anyone to be put in my friend's situation (he already has suffered a stroke)and find out that this doctor does not have the qualification that Wiki alludes to. Please stop changing my editing.

Righteouselephant (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But who says he is board certified in the US? He is a member of Australian medical societies etc also. Furthermore, you have been making statements about him being investigated and there is absolutely nothing to support your statement - it is therefore not permissible on Wikipedia. It wouldn't be permissible if he was dead but since he is actually alive you could be looking at a libel action. You cannot tarnish a doctor's reputation in this way, nor indeed anyone's. Why did you not talk about this instead of being combative and obscure with your edits?- Sitush (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

When someone says he is board certified that means he is registered to practice in the US. They don't say this in Europe and they don't say this in Australia. He is being investigated by my friend!! My friend lives in the US and tried to find this doctor for advice and after lots of searching, he is not registered to practice in the US. My friend is desperate for help and he spends most of his time surfing the internet as his mobility is impaired. He does not need to waste his time like this. You would allow someone selling snake oil as a cure for stroke to put information like this on Wiki? Wiki is great just like the world wide web but it can be prone to promotion of false information. I have never used Wiki to edit anyone's material till I saw my friend spending so much time on this. I hope this page gets deleted. If it ever gets put up, I hope it would be accurate. I personally think the site is false as who would go around calling themselves a doctor and next paragraph calls himself a DJ!! I wish for good quality, scientific material for my friend. Next thing, we are going to have the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh saying he can fix cancer.

Righteouselephant (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but they do say it in Australia. I am the person who has put the page up for deletion because he is "not notable", in my opinion. But that does not alter the fact that you have libelled the guy and it doesn't matter a fig what your own researches have revealed: if it is not in print etc then you cannot say it. Take a look at WP:OR, WP:Notability, WP:Verify and WP:BLP.

I didn't write the article. He probably didn't write it. You are making big assumptions here and, frankly, you should probably leave well alone as you seem to be out of your depth on this particular issue. I'm happy to guide you but not if you are going to continue this vandalism ... because that is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you all don't mind in me being a talk page stalker here.I believe Righteouselephant's viewpoint is correct. Sitush has got no clue about the facts and he has unnecessarily acted in haste. Balltender (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I do mind. You have once again demonstrated a lack of understanding about how Wikipedia's systems work: the user was blocked. Go away please. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have mind because you accused me of trolling my own talk page!!!!. In the garb of discussion you have always tried to push your POV. I will take this up with a steward. Balltender (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You asked me if I minded, I do. Look, I appreciate that English may not be your first language but either you understand you limitations or you do not. At the moment it seems to me that you do not, sorry. However, feel free to take up what ever you want with whomever you choose if that is the way you want to waste some time. - Sitush (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to provide a helping hand to those with whom you engage in edit wars. Balltender (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		I hope these made your day brighter! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please do not use talk pages such as User_talk: Balltender for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about? I haven't been on Balltender's page for a bit and when I was we were discussing how to deal with a redirect. The above message makes no sense to me at all. - Sitush (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Boolyme has a history of abusing antivandal tools, and got rollback removed after requesting page protection due to "vandalism" (an edit war where he used rollback). See his (blanked) talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, Balltender's talk page is also cleared. And prior to clearing it had exactly the same template message as that above, directed at me. It is, of course, a misplaced template as it applies to article pages. Heck of a coincidence, especially with the timing of Balltender's messages above + that of Boolyme. Still, here in the UK it is already tomorrow, and another day. Thanks for the cookies,. Yummy :) - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Update - interestingly, Balltender has in the last few hours just reinserted, with identical phrasing, the very point about which Boolyme was in a war & for which rollback privileges were removed. Odd. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI following deeper investigations. You can see it here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to say it out loud because this is a first for me, but with what has gone on at Patna and here on my own talk page the situation does look a little peculiar. If it isn't sockpuppetry then it is one heck of a concert party & that also might be vs policy/guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 23:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello,No idea about blocking thing,but i can access those links easily.Can you explain sockpuppeting,in layman's language,i can't make out what exactly it is.I can see Boolyme is registered in wikiproject bihar,does he/she belongs to the state?Maverick.Mohit (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PP

I was wondering, from your British perspective, what you would think of this: Should the Planned Parenthood article be pointing to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America as it currently does (which probably does get featured in the news the most) or the arguably larger, more influential and international International Planned Parenthood Federation? I'm beginning to think that it may be wise to switch that to the IPPF instead of PPFA... thoughts? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can't Planned Parenthood have a disambig page? There is no way that the PP (US) article should or could be merged with IPPF but both articles need a link at their tops and in "See also" which links to the other. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback re: Colleges of Patna

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 18:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't have any problem with merger.However,one college named National institute of fashion technology is missing from the list,this college does not function under patna university.It is governed by central government.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - stick the thing in there. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway & Sons (boiler section)

Just wanted to say that I have no plans to split-out the boiler section (as discussed elsewhere) to a new article myself. Having the pictures in a gallery (which I would usually avoid) makes the presentation that much more compact so that the Commons boxes are actually quite close when the patents table is in its hidden state, and I don't think there is a pressing need for an article split just yet. Since you are uncovering more information about the boilers (I've had a look at your latest edits) it may be best for you to decide when the split should occur, and do so, unless, of course, Andy D gets there first... -- EdJogg (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure that I have the necessary experience to determine when a split should occur, if ever, but I'll see how things go. I have just tied down some dates for the MP's directorship - an issue which has been something of a mystery. If/when you have the chance could you just check that in the See Also section please? You raised the query some time ago and I wonder if the latest info is sufficient to justify my removal of a tag that has been there for ages. Thanks, - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, mainly wanted to make sure you knew I was not going to do the split. It is a logical thing to do, but it can wait. (Just as well I just previewed this...I forgot the word 'not'!!)

Re the 'see also' -- the problem was that there was clearly a family link, but it wasn't clear what the link was. It would be helpful if you can take the William Johnson Galloway article under your wing at the same time, to make sure it remains up-to-date with your other research.

EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the biographical article is actually a little flawed and/or "broad brush" in some of its statements. I'll try to do something with it based on what I now know. Eg: it names the wrong business, the wrong title (you cannot and never have been able to be a partner of a limited company, until the arrival of LLPs in recent times), arguably misleading residence data etc. As you#ll now know, the family link is that he is the son of John junior; I could tell you - with sources - where the "Johnson" name came from if you wanted to know, but it is too trivial even for me to document <g> - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Guidance on university articles

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 16:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

External Links

Hi Sitush. For future edification, external links are not considered citations, as citations are footnotes or references... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, to what article are you referring? I am aware of WP:EXT & can see minimal crossover between your edits and mine, so I am confused about what you are concerned about. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
Message added 12:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleting

Hi. Curious what is considered relevant? I attempted to add information about the company's services and leadership but you removed it, though I do not understand why? I think this is important information and am conscious of Wikipedia's policies. I would like to contribute with respect to the guidelines. Please help me understand how to properly present this information so that it may be included. Thank you. NHFC2011 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Listing members of staff who are not in themselves going to pass the Wikipedia Notability guidelines (WP:Notability) is likely to be trivia. Bolding their names was certainly unnecessary - WP:MOSBOLD Removing a critical section without explanation is simply bad editing (although I can't recall whether it was you or someone else today who did it, the removal keeps happening). Copying and pasting from a website, book etc is contrary to Wikipedia's copyright policies - WP:Copyright. Gushing phrases are contrary to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policies - WP:NPOV. Editing something when you are connected in any way with the subject is contrary to WP:COI. Editing something in a manner which unduly promotes the subject is contrary to WP:Advert. There are others - I am afraid that the list is long but with experience comes knowledge. Believe me, I only know a fraction of it! And I make mistakes.

Do not despair because against all of the above there is WP:BOLD - you can go do anything (within reason!) and just see if someone has a problem with it. I did on this occasion, I'm afraid to say, for the reasons noted. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got it! I will rephrase the text and use the website as a source rather than use their verbiage. It was not me who deleted sections without explanation. Thanks for your help. NHFC2011 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look on my user page User:Sitush you will find a template for citing web pages along with a link to the article that explains how to use it. If you let me know when you are done then I'll take a quick look and rather than just do my thing I'll try to talk you through it. Of course, there may be nothing to talk through if you've got it right - happy days! - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

University of East London School of Law

Hi Sitush, thanks for your work on the school of law article. I have re-added the Imran Khan entry to the list of notable alumni, while he has not yet got a Wikipedia Article, his notability for one meets guidelines (I may make that my next project). There are two refs accompanying his entry on the school of law alumni section that help to demonstrate notability, and these sources (amongst others) help back-up the assertion of notability:

• BBC Documentary
• 'For the people (guardian.co.uk)
• Timesonline
• New Statesman

Cheers, Darigan (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I know of him myself. I am being deliberately brutal in some of these university articles because people are getting carried away and then using the "well someone else has got away with it" defence. However, please bear in mind that WP guidelines for university articles discourage lists of alumni etc, so it may still go. He does need his own article, though, so your willingness is appreciated! - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll put the Imran Khan article on my to-do list. Cheers Sitush, Darigan (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

John Thomas Financial

I see you have deleted the section critical of John Thomas. Did you just give in because of all the vandalism? Again, I understand it has been frequently attacked, probably by people involved with the company, but I do not feel there was any merit to give in to their deletes. There was good referenced information in there regarding Belesis' affidavit, for example.--Screwball23 talk 18:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I brought it up on the reliable sources noticeboard and the consensus seemed to be that the sources were not in fact reliable, especially bearing in mind that this is a BLP. So, after several days of reverting deletions of the section I ended up doing it myself! There's a link to the discussion in one of my edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the noticeboard discussion and I have to agree. I do not see why the affidavit cannot be used, and I suspect it is part of some larger amount of legal paperwork on the topic, but the blog page has its faults, and the affidavit itself doesn't give enough background to really understand what happened. There are other references on InterOil's performance during that time period, but that research is 100% speculative in nature—and only the blogs have bothered tying it to the company.--Screwball23 talk 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with the outcome. Initially I was just firefighting vandals/probable COI but then it struck me that the citations looked a bit dodgy, hence the referral to the noticeboard. If there is dirt then it needs to come from better sources than those which have appeared so far. They may in fact be there but I haven't been able to find them. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very disappointing, because that affidavit was a clear and indisputable reference. I'm not saying it was an official statement of misconduct, but it was clearly a response to a serious accusation. In my experience, just judging from the types of edits that were being put up there, I can tell you right now that those editors involved in this page are not going to sit back and take any dirt on this page. They are seriously trying to advertise the company.--Screwball23 talk 19:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your advertising point also, and will be fighting that corner as and when it arises. There are also issues regarding past goings-on with Belesis, mentioned on the FIRNA search - it will all come out in due course, I'm sure. I am going to do some more digging regarding all of this. The guy has a past but the FIRNA site is a poor reference point because most of it is not universally accessible (no idea why - it should be). - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What the hell are you doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why the hell did you delete loads of information on the 'University of east london' page, which i have been looking after for ages and contributing to the page to make it much more better for students who are thinking of coming to the uni or people who are interested in knowing more about the uni, and i have spent many many hours doing this page, and then you come along and delete loads of useful bits which i spent hours doing. Why why why??????

I want you to put back the bits that you have deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S naylor89 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not going to happen, sorry. If you read WP:UNIGUIDE then you will get some idea why. You have unfortunately included a lot of stuff which is not per WP guidelines for university articles. If you read my edit summaries then you will see a way round some of this issue. There will almost certainly be further cuts fairly soon - I am currently seeking community guidance on the list of honorary degrees, which seems to me to be inappropriate and trivial as well as being a list of the type that policy already prevents for alumni etc. Please also bear in mind that WP is not intended to be a repository of advertisements. I'm sorry if you have wasted so much time on this but sometimes that's life: the linked guidelines above may help you, as might looking at some of the "Good articles" for universities, such as Oriel College, Oxford - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, kudos for your patient step-by-step edits to the article, explaining along the way. Well done. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit concerned about how drastic I was being on that one and about this ^ ^ user. Not sure how you have picked up on what has been going on but, again, thanks, I might reward myself with a beer later. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it a good one. My brother recommends anything from Duvel Moortgat. I saw your note on Moonriddengirl's page and was interested. I've had many such dealings. One removes unencyclopedic information (and often that's putting it nicely), patiently, one edit at a time, to have it all just dumped back in--"it's true so it's relevant." I don't think you were being drastic at all; the person above clearly doesn't have a proper understanding of what this is all about. Well, good luck, and take care! Drmies (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

Hi Sitush, Thanks for your note. Not a lot is going to happen tonight (its almost 9 pm and I'll be stopping shortly), but I'll do a quick read of the article tomorrow, so put Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company/GA1 on your watchlist as my comments will appear there. It will probably pass (interestingly it will my 365th GAN review, so I can't really fail it). Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have watchlisted per your advice. Enjoy your 365th! - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question on my talkpage: I should have made that clearer on the /GA1 page. I can't guarantee to get everything right, or even everything right first time, but if I change my mind I will strike through my earlier comment(s): I don't beleive in rewritting history soviet-syle (a non-PC comment perhaps). By all means comment on the /GA1 page as I go, it helps me if you comment individually directly below my comment(s), rather than in a block. You can even state that I am wrong, but the reviewers decision is "final" so I have to agree that I am wrong - but you can take it to WP:GAR at the end if we can't agree. :-) Pyrotec (talk)

Congratulations on the GA. I see from the revision history that you've almost single-handedly rescued the article from AfD and got it up to GA (well close to FA in my opinion). Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I got a lot of advice along the way & have learned much about WP itself during the last couple of months. I'm very grateful for your assistance and time spent in the review, and also for clearing up some "newbie" questions about GA procedure/requirements etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA status! I agree that the article is probably FA-quality. --Orlady (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		Congratulations on single-handedly getting this to GA such a short time after its unhappy and fractious beginnings. You may be a relative newbie to WP but you have shot up the learning curve in a way that other editors do not always manage. Bravo! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't waste my precious time

I've got a warning for doing an unhelpful edit to a page that I never edited, after making a comment in a discussion page. The Wikipedia is very lucky that I spend a moment of my very scarce spare time commenting on the many mistakes and omissions that I come across without looking for work to do. I generally no longer bother to do edits of Wikipedia pages - I have found that too many my earnest and time-consuming attempts to correct atrocities are reverted, and I simply don't have time to waste. If you'd like me to stop contributing altogether, just let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.161.174 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the problem was that you (or someone using the IP address that you used when you posted the msg above) deleted all the content below your entry at List of people from Doncaster, which caused the page to be listed in the maintenance categories. I also had doubts at the time about the legitimacy of the name which you added. "Vandalism" is unfortunately common (adult film "stars", profesisng love for an editor's girlfriend, insertion of expletives, blanking page sections etc), on wikipedia. You also inserted the name in the wrong place - a quick glance at the page would demonstrate this name should not have been added to the end of the list. I will revisit the article now and if I have got it wrong then I will reinsert the name for you, in order to conserve your precious time. Please could you sign your posts in future (type 4 tildes - ~ - after your name). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And now, having reviewed your entry, I find that the person named - Mark Neagle - has no entry on Wikipedia himself. I have no idea who the guy is and, more importantly, whether he is living or not. If he is living and you make an unsubstantiated comment about him working in the adult film industry then it is likely to be deleted in accordance with wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. I realise that your entry was not actually a biography, but it is quite a statement to make about someone. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My Reply

Please don't make the assumption you alluded to on my talk page. You appear to be rather confrontational and I would rather not deal with that at the moment. That is why I have not responded. It was a simple matter - so please just let it go. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a simple question: if you let me know what article you think I messed up then I can learn. If you don't then your msg was pointless. I do not understadn why you have been reluctant to assist. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• because I am working on something that requires intelligence, not distraction nor confrontation...Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. This is stupid, You seem now to be inferring that I am unintelligent (as you are not). Wrong, very wrong. I can see that you are doing a fair few edits across a wide range of subjects each day, so there is no obvious reason why you could not spare the time to clarify - it is not as if you were that involved in your "intelligent" project that you were unable to do numerous copyedits, small fixes etc all over the project. I'm starting to think that you were wrong and are too impolite to apologise. I've been through your edits around the time that you posted your first message here to me and can see no edits by you on articles with which I was involved. Your original comment therefore appears to have no basis: neither you, nor anyone else that I can see, altered any edits of mine regarding external links around that time. I must therefore assume that your conduct since merely proves my suggestion that you have since realised you were incorrect. We all make mistakes but a decent. honourable person will admit to them. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Again one more time. By intelligence, I was not referring to you nor your activities.I was referring to my own activities entirely. I do not have time since I am in the process of working on something which has nothing to do with you. If I thought I was wrong I would gladly apologize but as I am sure that I am in this case not, I have not apologized. However, I don't have time to reconstruct my activities or yours as to the original reference. Apparently, you are too aggressive and essentially nasty for me to reply or take out a period of time from the work I am doing on a theory to worry about your personal insecurities... Again, I did not make a mistake, I simply do not have time to bother with you...Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a cop-out at worst and both inconsiderate + failing in the collaborative spirit of WP at best. You know, I know it. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

University of East London

Hello

I have done some major improvements to the page, as you have stated in your guidelines. Please do not delete anything this time, if their is something wrong, then please tell me and we can get it changed instead of deleting information which maybe important.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by S naylor89 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

UEL

I give up with wikipedia. You add useful information to help wikipedia become a better place, and then it just gets deleted straight away. I cant be borthered with wikipedia any more. Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by S naylor89 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to give up - just learn from what is going on. That is why I've gone out of my way both to provide information directly to you about where things are going wrong and also go into massive detail in numerous edit summaries. You can learn this, honest. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaya

See Talk:Kaya (Canadian singer). Drmies (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Love Recipe (TV series)

Editor had created two pages, one far more reasonable at Love Recipe (TV Series), which I have moved to Adam Ronnie Green making Love Recipe (TV series) a redirect. Still struggling to meet any notability criteria and should probably be prodded or afd'd. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Cheers. Couldn't make my mind up whether it was a real person, a TV series or something else! Let's see if there are any developments over the next 24 and then consider PROD. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Carlos Slim

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 00:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Carlos Slim

While Elietaktouk (talk · contribs) may be violating WP:3RR at Carlos Slim, it's not clear-cut that they are vandalizing/editing in bad faith. I suggest that you proceed carefully, lest your edits run afoul of 3RR. I'd say this is a good time to discuss the situation at Talk:Carlos Slim. If you're attempting to discuss the matter there but the other editor is not, then it's very clear what's going on. If neither party is discussing the matter on the talk page, then they could both wind up with a short-term block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hats off to you for recognizing the situation even before I pointed it out! —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You just type slower :P - Sitush (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Now done on the article talk page. I'd already started a discussion about incorporation of his Lebanese ethnicity into the lead. In both cases a part of my issue is how he defines himself, given that this is a BLP. In the case of ethnicity it is also a weight issue. I'm pretty sure that both of these points have only arisen in the last few days as a direct consequence of the news story re: his wealth, so perhaps what I should have done was just let it all die down and then quietly revert to the situation which had existed for some considerable period prior to it. I'm not usually involved in "recent news" articles, although there has been an amazing brouhaha at Churchill Machine Tool Company despite that business having died 40 years ago! Live and learn, and appreciate your involvement again. - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just blocked Elietaktouk for 24 hours for edit warring, both on Carlos Slim and on another article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Might now be able to concentrate again on bringing Paravar up to spec tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

Please see talk page discussion.--Screwball23 talk 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, you're probably watching away, but I decided to "improve" the WP:Lead and will now wait to see what happens. Pyrotec (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed and am perfectly content with your changes. Leads are not one of my strong points, as I've said before. Grateful for your help.

I've said my bit about events yesterday on the article talk page and do not intend to get involved further unless and until Screwball23 actually does initiate "his side" of the discussion with specific points. Even then, I'd prefer to take a back seat unless no-one else comes forward. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. By all means sit back and watch the mud slinging: I'm convinced that we are dealing with a case of WP:Disruptive editing. I hope that this incident does not drive you away from producing articles. I still think that your article could make FAC at the future date, but that has to be your decision and the process can be rather painful (far worse then my reviews, "grammar" is not one of my strong points so I tend to ignore it unless it is obvious). I have little personal experience beyond GAN: quite a few of the articles that I have reviewed at GAN have made FA: I was a joint nominator once at FAC (the article made it at second attempt) and I'm helping out fixing the "problems" with another FAC nomination. The biggest error at FAC in my opinion is premature submission, which usually results in failure, that is why I'm taking "future" and not "now", or "soon". Pyrotec (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

School of Law proposed deletion

Hi Sitush, thanks for the note about the proposed deletion of the School of Law article. Having looked at your rationale and the guidelines linked to, I won't be opposing the deletion. Cheers for the heads up, best Darigan (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for not notifying you of the discussion I had started on the University project talk page, although I'm pleased to see that you spotted it anyway. My query there is primarily to clarify my interpretation of Uniguide, although I'm sure that if it should turn out that I'm not far off the mark then I'll be taking the UEL article to AfD. Probably quite a few others also! I'm not really of a deletionist tendency but the spread of faculty/department articles with little or no intrinsic merit (sorry) just seems odd to me. UEL is a pretty mild example. Doubtless it has much to do with the enthusiasm of youth as these articles tend to be heavily edited by current students. Alas, my youth is long behind me!

I'd also like to thank you for being so co-operative about all this. It must feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth to have spent time creating an article and then see the entire existence of it challenged. Your magnanimity and civility in dealing with the situation is impressive. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendesha deletion

Hi, I am just wondering why it is being considered for deletion. It said that there is promotion of a person or product but there isn't. Friendesha is a state of mind and there are no products or services trying to be sold. We are just trying to get out the idea of Friendesha. Please research this by visiting the external link included to the website, you'll find all of this to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJSully23 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be selling for it to be promotion. There are all sorts of other reasons why this article is unsuitable and I have tagged it for these. They include links on how to improve it. I notice that you had removed an earlier request for speedy delete - you should not do this - and that request was on notability grounds. Just proves the point, I'm afraid, that the article has multiple problems. I am happy to help you out using Wikipedia but you should not be editing this article anyway because, as I have explained to you elsewhere, you have a conflict of interest. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way that you could help write it so I'm not being partial?

Friendesha help

Is there any chance that you could help me write the article so I'm not being partial in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJSully23 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not because there are not enough sources to work off. This is one of the problems and is why it fails the "notability" test. Maybe some day, when you have news stories etc to back it up, the article could be recreated. I'm happy to help you with any other Wikipedia article you choose to edit. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Hi,

thanks for your apologise. But i have Changed it to Syriac-Maronite, look at the source after the second pictue it says "Slim was born in Mexico City, Mexico. His father, Julián Slim Haddad, a Syriac-Maronite Christian, immigrated to Mexico in 1902 from Lebanon, alone at 14 years of age,"

Look in the source http://indiascanner.com/carlos-slim-helu-richest-man-in-the-world-2010-28519

And to answer your Qustion a Syriac-Maronite is a member of the Syriac-Maronite Church of Antioch, its is the full name of the maronite church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.50.189 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the source and I gave you the reason why you cannot use it. Please revert. You cannot use a circular reference on Wikipedia, and this is a circular reference. Find an alternative source please. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say we should use Maronite Christian, because the Syriac-Maronite Church is a Catholic Church and the word Maronite pointed out that they are Catholic, and Syriac is a Dialect of Aramaic, that was the language of the Syriac-Maronite christians today the most are speaking arabic but Syriac-aramaic is still using as theri Liturgical language, and their are still using the syriac font. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.50.189 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Different reasoning to me but same conclusion. I now need to go out and buy a new book on comparative religion - mine is clearly inadequate. - Sitush (talk)

Sorry to butt in, but I used Wikipedia to come to the conclusion by a third route: the article on the Maronite Church uses Maronites as the term for members, so we're just being consistent with that—and linking the term, which points back to the article on the church. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But I also noticed that it seems to be making a distinction between Maronite and Syriac. And the Syriac Catholic Church has its own article. Makes me wonder whether this issue could be as complex as some of the articles on India, with multiple names for the same place or similar names for different places etc. However, I'm keeping well away from that one. I know my limitations; well, some of them at least. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Syriac Orthodox Church the Syriac Catholic Church and the Syriac Maronite Church are all splits from the Syriac Orthodox Church.

And the maronites are a part of the syriac people the official website of the patriac of the maronites say the same

look here http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143:-introduction&catid=35:maronite-identity-&Itemid=55

"and even though through the effect of time they took a distinctive Maronite character, this did not obscure their Antiochene and Syriac origin"

so the member of alls syriac churches are a part of the syriac people.

There is no diffrent beetwenn syriac or maronite its just another term.93.195.50.189 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! So in that case the term Syriac-Maronite is tautology? Thanks for the info. If you have the chance then you may like to check over the WP articles on these subjects and see if they match your expectations. Just remember to cite verifiable, reliable sources if you go adding information. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Somerset High School

I did not write about the football team's success. Also, none of my edits on the article have been deleted. I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, but I am not the person that you're looking for. - 10blaken (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011

Correct. On your talk page it warns you about a possible copyright violation you appear to have introduced. Nothing to do with sports - that was an attempt to revert a previous contribution which went wrong. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Pokémon episodes

Why did you covert the standard link format to a {{Cite web}} format? I have never seen that done before. "Cite web" is used for referencing websites, not for external link sections. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using the format but the reason was that I am trying to locate the cause of the error in referencing. There has been an error thrown for some time and it is "cluttering up" the maintenance pages. Starting to think that it may be in a transcluded page but if you have any idea yourself then I would be grateful. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and at first I thought it was because of your format change to use CiteWeb, but that shouldn't set off reference errors. I looked, and realized it's because there isn't a "note" group listing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But I couldn't find a Note group ... - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As Again This page Start Working

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govind_Kumar_Singh as again this page start working as it is worth less page as you also nominate for speedy deletion. contact any adminstrator for speedy deletion.

Hello

I will do major improvements to this page, as you have stated in your guidelines. Please do not delete anything this time, if their is something wrong, then please tell me and we can get it changed instead of deleting information which maybe important.

Kind Regards Wnfck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnfck (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting every information form page Govind Kumar singh

Dear ,user Sitush as I requested you don't delete any information from page Govind Kumar Singh , you have again deleted all information form this page . I have updated the page with references , why you want make my page useless ? This my first article i put my efforts to collect all information , and your are simply deleting every thing , please dont do that if dont delete any information .we can discuses on my talk page , i will try to improve this article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermapriya1986 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Woah, the only person who has requested such a thing (and they were incorrect, in my opinion) was User:Wnfck. I've seen nothing from you. Or are you that user also? - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please can you show me where you asked me not to edit the page etc before. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

please dont change , or edit this page , you have made it useless this page , you have deleted all informations . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermapriya1986 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revert to Télé Distribution Française

I agree that I forgot to include a <references/> tag in the bottom, but the ftp link Time signals known to BIPM most definitely does Work For Me™. Are you sure it doesn't work for you? In any case, the information was in the article before I edited it, just unsourced. I'm inclined to put it back (with the fix so the footnote actually appears), but I wanted to understand your objections better. Can you clarify? Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't work at the time I tried it but perhaps that was just a server blip at the source. I rather made an assumption that the WP cite system wouldn't/didn't like the ftp protocol for the url (just like it does odd things if you forget the http:// in front of the www). Just try it again - I think I put a reflist in there so it should just work ... or not <g> Sorry if I have messed you about here. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem; it was just a bit of "it can't be that simple, can it?" bewilderment. Thanks for the reply. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Sonshine lineups

How can this deletion be justified? A double-standard remains here in the fact that the rest of the article has been like that for many months, and has been edited very much the same way in such a matter. Why choose now to delete it? If you will notice, headliners for Glastonbury are also promoted on the Glastonbury Wikipedia page. Teglement (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Teglement

I am glad that you took up my suggestion to look at the Glastonbury article. However, I am confused with your comment above. Please can you point out to me where in it there is a list of, say, 40 or so headliners for this or any previous year? Such a list is what was on Sonshine, for each year and mostly repetitive.

The reason why Sonshine came to my attention was because your recent edits had caused the page to appear on the maintenance lists due to accidental misuse of the referencing system (it "threw an error"). I have no interest in music festivals, religions etc & so no axe to grind - it is just another article, approached neutrally by someone without a conflict of interest or a point of view. The fact that the article had been in the state for a long time is not a justification for it staying that way. It might, for example, reflect a limited interest in it.

Aside from the lists, much of the content which I removed was simply unencyclopedic in nature (eg: a unknown, insignificant bloke proposing marriage, pancake breakfasts etc) or POV ("he gave a moving sermon" - paraphrased) . In fact, most of what is left below the content box should go for the same sort of reasons (set lists, for example, are trivia in this context) but I decided to leave some bits in order that those more interested might have something to work off. I give you notice, though, that they'll be gone in the next few days if nothing develops. Sorry, but this is not the place for much of what was in the article. I actually have some doubts as to whether the entire subject should be here but imagine that there is sufficient coverage in niche media to justify its inclusion as a stub. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I do completely agree that most of the article was rubbish, but I see no problem with lineups, as various other articles such as Ozzfest and Moondance Jam do have archived line-ups. Would it be more appropriate to keep such line-up pages in a separate page, much like other festival pages have done? Documenting line-ups for festivals is encyclopedic, and I would still like for there to be the option to keep those involved. And thank you for at least keeping the Sonshine article, as it is one of the larger Christian music festivals in the nation. I won't say THE largest, because I honestly don't know.

Teglement (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not my article and you are allowed, indeed encouraged, to be bold. However, my subtle hint seems to have worked as, indeed, having lists on separate pages is certainly preferable in my opinion and is the route which appears to be taken by the better articles. You might also want to take a look at other stuff exists regarding your point about Ozzfest etc. You know more about the subject than me and I would encourage you to improve the subject but please also bear in mind that it must be verifiable using reliable sources - so you are going to need citations etc from sources independent of Sonshine, and preferably several such sources rather than just the one. I can't really help you with the detail but am happy to help with the technicalities etc, with the proviso that I am off in the wilderness for the next couple of days & may not have internet access.

BTW, although the lists are no longer visible on the article page they are still in the history, so there is no need for you to type all the stuff out again. Just go to the history immediately prior to my edits and copy/paste to wherever, then edit to suit your purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it is possible to create a page for drafts etc in your own userspace. This might be a good idea while you work on it as it will prevent someone turning up and requesting deletion before it is ready for the world to see. It is easy to move it into Wikipedia space later. I've taken the liberty of setting up such a page for you, just in case & before I disappear - it is at User:Teglement/Sonshine2011. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI heads-up

Courtesy note: Vermapriya1986 (talk · contribs) did create a SPI case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sitush, although it does look like it will be quickly dismissed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly hope it is dismissed because I'm not doing it :( - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the whole ongoing saga, I've started discussions and they usually get ignored by the other editor, who is also ignoring pretty much everyone else. What more can I do? The revert situation is just dreadful and there is absolutely no sign of an attempt to collaborate. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If he continues ignoring everybody else, he will likely get himself blocked. If he violates 3RR, his claims that all the other accounts reverting him are the same user won't hold any water. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, but I'm going to get blocked for what at present is really technical reverting. I've been sure for a couple of days that there is some socking going on here somewhere: the two users alternate almost miraculously & their language/phrasing/argument is very similar. However, I haven't got the heart to dig through it all and provide the diffs. More fool me, I guess. I'll go do something else for an hour. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's stressing you to work on this article right now, then don't. There's plenty else out there to deal with. Plus, there's an administrator (other than me) who's seen the sockpuppetry, so you likely won't need to track down the diffs. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not stressing. Wouldn't carry on if I was stressed. Just a bit frustrating + I'm concerned about overstepping the mark with reverts. Like I said, I'll go away for an hour & work on a draft I've got going. Thanks for your help and advice. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company PR

Thanks very much for the heads-up. It does make a difference to me, because an article that is unstable for any reason poses insoluble problems for a reviewer. I'll post what I've got so far, but I won't go on to the end at this point. I'd be happy to take another look later after things settle down. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the PR is so short at this point, either embedding the comments or putting them at the end is fine. Finetooth (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I got your note. I'll re-read the article and make more comments tomorrow (Saturday). Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You are going to be in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Please desist from edit waring before you are blocked from editing. Thanks--SH 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No I am not because you are in breach of WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not because clearly you have not WP:AGF. What you are trying to insert is WP:Sythesis. Thanks--SH 12:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Show me where the article says all Sikhs please. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, again you have not WP:AGF. The article says "members of the Sikh community". try resing it before Edit Warring. Thanks --SH 12:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And BRD says you must obtain consensus before changing. Please do this - I started a discussion, so it should be seen though. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on my friend, I think you are getting the rules back to front. I changed what was clear WP:Sythesis. You reverted my change without discussion. That is not how we edit in wikipedia. I read the aricle and it did not mention a section or a group, or a collective but "members of the Sikh community". Leave it at that and stop with the WP:LAWYER Thanks--SH 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the whole phrase is under discussion & was before your edits. I apologise for temporarily (and accidentally) reverting your contribution on the talk page, though. My bad. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just for information, I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism and my mother and father are Hindu, so you could say I have a foot in both camps of this topic. Thanks --SH 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have both feet firmly outside both camps <g> I didn't realise that anyone could convert to Sikhism - thought it was a race, for some reason. Then again, I believe that people can convert to Judaism even though that is claimed to be a race. Interesting - I will have to read up on it. Thanks for taking it to the discussion page. I do accept that what I initiated on that page is synthesis, but synthesis on a talk page is not breach of policy. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, both of you violated policies, and both of you have to stop (if this dispute is still going on). Let it be that way and no more accusations of policy violations.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

? This was all sorted two days ago. Once Sikh-history started contributing to the talk page discussion I had started, the whole thing was resolved very quickly, calmly and - I think we'd both agree - to the betterment of the article. I'm not sure why you are raising it now: did you see the article or have you just seen the spat here on my talk page which, I notice, doesn't mention the article? - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this incident. I had been in one of these myself earlier (with Fleetcommand), and I feel they just get nothing done.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff happens! I'm afraid that a lot of my stuff happens because right now I'm editing various Indian articles (most notably Paravar, trying to improve the quality thereof. I'll take a break from these soon & return to the calmer waters of Mancunian industrial history :) Although even that kicked off a couple of weeks back at Churchill Machine Tool Company :( - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Amusement Expo

Hello Sitush, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Amusement Expo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to events. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I assumed that there was a company behind it. I'll take it to PROD/AfD. If you look at the talk page then you'll see my suggestion to the article creator, which was (hopefully) helpful! - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC) PS: why is my reply in bold?!!

:) Thanks for taking it to AfD. It is just that CSD is not for articles with a lack of notability - A7 is only for those that do not make a claim of importance/significance. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's too lat enow and I'm happy to give the creator a chance until tomorrow. However, seriously, do you know why my reply above is bolded? Something weird going on which I presume is in yr original msg but I can't spot it. Grrr <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is because you started your reply with a semicolon instead of a colon. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, spot on. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the OP of the article titled Amusement Expo. I am not affiliated with the Expo in a commercial sense, just an enthusiast. How about this... since I don't have any secondary sources other than the two associations that sponsor, or the exhibitors that populate the convention. May I use those sources? Are they so close in interest as to be considered promotional or advertising.

I would like to move this article to my userspace, but understand I am not likely to get a chance to scrounge up offline secondary source soon if at all. If the article is relegated to my userspace, is there a way to make it public to other editors who have access to those other sources??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John11235813 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is a bit awkward. Moving it to your userspace does not prevent other people editing it but convention tends to be that they do not (it is your baby etc). In these circumstances, from my limited experience of the situation, you'd probably invite people to help out, perhaps by finding significant contributors to similar articles & explaining the situation to them.

Leaving it in mainspace and relying on self-published sources (including press releases etc) is likely not to be acceptable, as you've already surmised - how long it would stay there is anyone's guess: it could be days, it could be years. The current "notability" tag may attract some attention but if the sources are so awkward to come by then it may attract the "wrong" sort of attention, ie: someone proposing it for deletion!

Equally, Wikipedia is timeless & there is no rush to get something like this done. If it takes a few months or whatever to get the article up to standard then so be it. Also, even if it gets deleted there is nothing to stop you recreating the article in the future when you do have suitable sources.

Another point is that sometimes when an article gets proposed for deletion that is the spur for someone to step in and sort it out. For example, I stepped in to massively expand (40-fold) Churchill Machine Tool Company in January when it was up for deletion. The deletion discussion process lasts a few days & you'd be surprised who can turn up out of the woodwork in that time, so sometimes it works in favour of the article.

Sorry but I really do not have any answers here, merely explanations of how things work. I think that I'd be inclined to move it to userspace for a while until I've done as best I can with it, then throw it open to the world for judgement, but that's just me. I wonder if there is a wikiproject dealing with this subject area who might be able to assist? I'll do a bit of digging for you. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed your speedy...

Hey there. I removed your CSD G3 tag on Plank Champion of the World, and instead nominated it for AFD. I am pretty sure this is not a hoax, but either way it will probably be more of a sure thing listed at Afd as a topic that isn't notable enough. MobileSnail 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Tirunelveli

Please do not repeat your revert of my edit to the Tirunelveli article. Yes it is correct, the centre lies between river and Highway and wht in previous edit is correct, then why ur deleting.The centre has an evergreen science park in sylvan surroundings and is located adjacent to the perennial river Thamirabharani, along the highway to Kanyakumari.For your info i am the native person of Tirunelveli. ---Prev Ravanth 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not repeat your revert of my edit to the Tirunelveli article - the small pieces I rmeoved are simply not encyclopedic and as such have no place in the article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

C.Rajagopalachari, who is also fondly called as Rajaji, had described Palayamkottai as the Oxford of South India during his days of active politics in Tamil Nadu at a college function in Palayamkottai which had been well received and appreciated by academicians then in the first half of 20th century. Anyone who is hailing from there (or studied there or worked there) knows about it. I will be able to provide you the details only after my next trip to Palayamkottai.Who, when, how, etc. details for similar descriptions such as ` Kochi is considered as the Queen of Arabian sea` or ` Coimbatore is the Manchester of South India`, `Ooty - the Queen of the Hills`, etc. are not only difficult but also unimportant.--Kumaripriya (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who are you? And what point are you trying to make here? I have not edited the Palayamkottai article except to fix a piece of vandalism, so I'm confused here. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of misunderstanding on your part. I just responded to your message for edits on Tirunelveli (and not Palayamkottai). Anyway, don`t worry! Good luck.--Kumaripriya (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Got you. The reason for removing stuff about Palayamkottai from the Tirunelveli article is that the former has its own article and there is no need to duplicate. In particular, the latter article is far too big and clumsy & therefore pruning back (as the tag at the top says) is the right way to go. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New User

No no you're quite alright. trying to get a feel for editing and what not. Quatro86 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Quatro86

That's fine. Check out the WP:Sandbox for testing etc - much "safer" as you will not get hassled. Any probs then just yell & I'll help you out. But not on the company article <g> - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Quatro86 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.136.80 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is not vandalism or soapbox...

This is vital factual information about the transformation of town which is similar in nature to history. I will re edit the site with the facts. Cheers Keith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithtowong (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the way you are writing it, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will try again. Why delete something though, why not edit it per your thoughts. I could delete a number of things but don't? I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithtowong (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One paragraph, that's all it is worth. Otherwise it is undue weight. And no peacock words, no non-neutral point of view etc. I'll stick a link on your talk page to the various Wikipedia policies. If you have a read of them before you edit again then you'll probably save yourself some heartache. Please note, I'm not the only editor who has reverted your contribution. You'll get there & I encourage you to edit, but what you have just done is so far beyond the bounds that it had to go. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now edited it down for you. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

well its a start, it is certainly interesting to see such hard sub-editors. I will have a think and provide additional content once I have read and understood a little more about the hard line policies. Note: The project is about change and views, if it was not for the views of the people of Tallangatta, its visitors and people who take interest then change would probably not ocour, fact certainly has an impact but views also do. I hope the policys mention views and impacts of those views; they have shaped our culture, history and the future. Maybe a view could be written as a quote?

Cheers Keith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithtowong (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless the quote is in a verifiable and reliable source which does not add undue weight. These are not tough policies: this is an encyclopedia, not a local council website etc. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Forester Mushet

Hello. I don't understand why you have removed some of the citations from the Robert Forester Mushet page and replaced them with citation requests. There's no reason to supposse that this and this, for example ar enot reliable reference sources. Obscurasky (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rootsweb is never a reliable source & this has been discussed time and again on the reliable sources noticeboard. In any case, it should be possible to find the book from which that transcript was made, maybe at www.archive.org (the task would be easier if the transcript actually named the book/page etc - but that it indicative of why it is unreliable as a source, I guess). I intend to return to sort it out. As for the other source, well, there is no indication of who wrote it and no indication of where the information came from; nor is it a "mainstream" sort of website. I also removed spamming of a local council/history website, the cites for which had no bearing on the statement being made. People cannot just insert citations willy-nilly: they need to have a direct connection to the statement otherwise it leads readers down a pointless path. Does this make sense to you? Don't panic too much about it - I am coming back and will sort it out. Adding the cite reqs is as much an aide memoire for me as anything else, but if someone else beats me to it then so much the better. Got a lot on at the moment but most of what I am doing is interconnected & so will make sense eventually. Recent work has been on W & J Galloway & Sons, Bessemer process, a draft in my userspace on the Lancashire Steel Company etc - all of which tie in to the same root subjects. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynnwood High School edit

If you disagreed with some of the citations I made, why did you not challenge or correct them? Undoing the entire edit is not warranted. I stand by the information added. I will re-verify the citations. All information added was directly cited inline and/or easily verifiable through the external references at the bottom. I agree that some of the information in the article may not be up to Wikipedia standards, but that was in there before my edit. Some was re-located and may show up as my revision, but it is not. Again, if you have a concern about a specific part, please fix it, challenge it in the article, or send me a message. Let's collaborate, not just dismiss somebody's work. Geniusloci99 (talk) Geniusloci99

It was throwing an error on the maintenance pages because of reference problems. Also, some of what you added was trivia - mission statement etc is absolutely not necessary. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK - I will remove the mission statement. Which references are problematic? I can deal with them now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geniusloci99 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

going to bed - 0300 here in the UK. I've done some stuff & you s/b able to see the reasoning if you click on the History tab. Any problems then let me know & I'll try to take a look tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any major problems with what you've done. I'll work on what I can - many of the citations you ask for are reasonable, but are not my work. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can do. Cheers ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geniusloci99 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Resource request

Hi Sitush,

Happy to help find that for you. I have online access to a lot of Wiley journals so feel free to let me know if you need something in the future.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your work at WP:BLPN thread about Frank Blaichman The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, and for your own work on the problem also. Do you mind just checking the section now that I've incorporated Ajh's stunning efforts? And maybe translate it into Serbo-Croat, Swahili or something while you are at it <g>

Now we've got the name right I think that the article has a chance of being more generally expanded. There are all sorts of small news items knocking around, for example, from before his book (and the allegations) came out. Not really my major interest & I'm currently working on some very large articles, but I'll pick at it. - Sitush (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Paradas/ Parada Kingdom

Given all of your great work at Paravar, I wonder if I might have your advice on another pair of articles. A long time ago (back in September 2010), I found Paradas and Parada Kingdom. After doing some significant copy-editing on Paradas, and exploring the two articles, it didn't make sense to me to have two different articles, one on the "kingdom" and one on the "people of the kingdom". I proposed a merger, and then promptly forgot about the issue. Today, while looking over my watchlist to update it, I saw the articles, and remember my long-forgotten plan. Of course, no one has commented at either article about the proposed merge. I'm still willing to do the merge myself, but I'm wondering if you have any opinion about which of the two should be the remaining article? Neither is really sourced--Paradas has 3 sources listed, but the only source that is actually identifiable is an ancient religious text. So, whichever one we choose, the article will not be a very good one, but I figure it's better to have 1 unsourced, speculative article, than two. I'll go searching for some references, but, as we know, they are quite hard to find, and I have no access to non-online sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the discussion page so that no-one points the finger of "blame" at you. Did a bit of a demolition job on the Paravar talk page yesterday: what a waste of my time that exercise probably was! - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't revert expansions and such

I am not sure what you mean by format here. If you mean the Polish text, it is unnecessary on English Wikipedia (but I left it in edit mode anyway). It should probably just be moved to talk, where interested editors can verify the translation (but frankly, I see the entire quote as not really necessary for the article). I've verified all other information, and expanded the article using the sources provided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article talk page please. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. As agreed on talk, I reverted to my version, used the information phrase that was agreed upon, and then improved the structure of the article. Please avoid personal attack's such as accusations of bullying. If any fragments of the article are not satisfactory, cite them on talk and we can discuss them (you can also revert anything you consider improper, of course). But please keep in mind that discussion is vastly helped if you are specific about your points of concern, and generic claims of bullying are not very helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire controversy section was agreed on talk, as AJH added it & with the word "information". You also agreed to wait 24 hours and actually waited less than one hour. It is not acceptable & to my mind it is bullying - you are trying to steamroller what you want to see. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted the agreed controversy section, and then did a series of uncontroversial, mostly stylistic edits. Has anything I done been actually controversial? I see no reason why I should wait 24h to correct his name and so on. If anything in particular - wording, claim, etc. - I've added is controversial, list it on talk and I'll revert it for discussion, of just be bold and revert me. I believe, however, that I clearly described my (uncontrovesial) edits in the editing summary. PS. So, please let me know which of the edits you see as problematic: correcting error on book publishing date, removing unnecessary quotation, adding full names of the agency he worked in, correcting error based on dates, ilinking a city, removing some unnecessary information, including a sentence I myself added earlier, and clarifying another sentence, rewording it for extra neutrality, reordering paragraphs by logic - first mention media attention, then discuss it in detail and move book authorship to biography - and adding a name of another historian, or finally the mentioned fix of his name as used by Polish sources? I'd appreciate your apology for the "bullying" accusation. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

go to the talk page and look for the bolded, capitalised word "START". The text between that and the similar word "END" has the support of myself and Ajh. It is not what you have inserted. Plus, it is controversial and you should wait as you agreed. You cannot possibly call that a minor/stylistic edit. So no apology. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just read through the latest revision [1]] and I am in agreement with what Piotrus wrote. It is well written, NPOV and well sourced. I have no objections. I think we should just let that revision stand. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I agree with you (and him), but not with the way he went about it. Anyway, water under the bridge. I walked away as the attitude was winding me up & the people involved do know their stuff/will keep an eye on it. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Minrajsankul

Hi. I have removed your Speedy Deletion tag from Minrajsankul, because failing to satisfy the notability criteria for schools is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason (in fact, Speedy deletion is actually not about notability standards at all). You might wish to check out WP:CSD to get a better understanding of Speedy Deletion and learn about the valid criteria. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion via AfD. Primary schools are almost never notable, so we can let it go that way. I could have prodded it, but rather than have the author likely remove the prod, an Afd is guaranteed to get a full discussion and decision. Feel free to add a comment to the AfD page if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still fall for that one sometimes: the difference between failure to demonstrate "notability" & failure to demonstrate "importance" seems slight to me. As you say, it is going to go one way or the other (which is no bad thing because it was being edited by a probable sock who was using it for advertising his own "web design" skills as much as anything else. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No politics!

Sorry Sitush, I'm not belonging to any political party. Please see my user page. I'm a first year engineering student. The S.A. in the end of my name is my initial. S is my father's & A is my mother's. Thank you for your advice. I personally feel sad for your words. :( --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't say that you did belong to a party, merely that using those initials on the end of your name might make it appear as if you did. Basically, I was pointing out that if you did work for her party then you maybe should read WP:COI. There is a bit of a problem with articles about India because a lot of them use initials that are meaningless to most people outside the country & should be explained. Your username is an odd example of where the problem with initials "runs over" into other areas. No offence was intended and thanks for clearing it up. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC

To clarify, I wondered whether "S.A." might be similar in some way to "MLA", ie: a political position of office. A lot of Indians are also very keen on using honorifics, probably for cultural reasons. And again, no offence intended! - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. but please read this before answering to new comers. WP:BITE

--Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been around for 10 months and made an average 18 edits per month. This is just on English Wikipedia as you say that you are also editing the Tamil version. I wasn't biting. Sorry if you think otherwise but suspect that it is because of a language/translation issue. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in - surya is exactly who he says he is. I personally know him (i am an admin in ta wiki and he is a highly trusted user there) and he is not a member of any political party.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have missed the context, although I note you agree that he is not in fact a newbie. This is all sorted now. I think I've made it clear above where the confusion lay, which was mostly a cultural/language thing. He was splattering complaints about a politically-oriented page on en-Wiki all over the place and that, plus the user name, raised a legitimate question. Which has now been answered. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. [Another]. And around the same time there was also a similar request on WP:BLPN. I've since tidied up Pratibha_Patil quite a lot. It still needs a fair amount of work, though. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Luisa Serra di Gerace

I thought this new article might ‘interest’ you. It’s twice been deleted before and, since I’ve {{db-bio}}’d it, I suppose it won’t last long this time. But it does seem that our noble colleague is up to his tricks again. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That contributor needs blocking, and probably for more than 24/31 hours as xe often has longer gaps anyway. Recreation of deleted material without a debate; frequent repetition of uncited material; spamming of family articles; failure to engage in discussion ... the list goes on and I still can't work out what/how/where to report it. It is absolutely bizarre. But thanks for the note and keep them coming: there is going to be quite a dossier by the time this one is resolved, however it may end up being resolved. I think we need to find either a noticeboard or an admin who might take an interest. I rather think JohnCD is one and has commented on the user's talk page - will check tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've asked now, here. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a bright move. Cheers! Ian Spackman (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

/* PAGE PROTECTION */

Hello. Someone is vandalizing Tamil Kshatriya page. Can you pleae help me ?Rajkris (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to get involved. Heck, I don't want to get involved, but I ended up warning both editors and then subsequently reporting them bother for breaking 3RR...or, in their cases, about 15RR. At some point, someone whose not warring will need to check the references, but I can't get to it today. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Short answer to anything involved with Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu is that the Paravars were not kshatriya (warriors) in the sense that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Basic rule: if the only source is either Sangam or quoting Sangam then as far as I am concerned, they cannot be called kshatriya here. Beyond that, I reckon I've got enough on my plate and in any case I'm not an admin & can't instigate protection. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Isaac Perrins

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gears of War 3

Sorry for the confusion. New to this. Thanks for correcting the error. I really appreciate it. The cite isn't to be placed in the article. It is meant to be added to the references page. It is another preview article that can be linked to. Somehow my editing tool said it was adding the reference but instead it included it as a cite. Not sure why it happened. I just wanted to add the link to the references, list of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pow2112 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I'm a bit concerned about the mentions of Twitter announcements without there actually being any link to the announcement. You may know where to find those links, but I certainly don't! Any help I can give you in finding your way around this place, just stick a note here & I'll do my best. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean about Twitter announcements. The link I was trying to add to the page was a news article but I cannot seem to add it under References.

There are two I wish to add, 1. http://www.g4tv.ca/technews/JP/JP_20110408_gearofwar3.shtml, which seemed to have worked and 2. http://www.g4tv.ca/technews/DB/DB_20110411_gearofwar3.shtml.

We covered the event and I thought the preview article would be valuable since they present more info not yet known.

I have used the plug-in editing tool and it just dumps the code in the page, it doesn't seem to add it to the References document and not sure how to do that or what the proper rules are concerning that. Not sure how to add a link to References when it seems that document or template is protected and there is no code in the page except for..."Reflist". Just wanting to contribute information that is valuable to the page. Thanks for your patience and sincerely sorry for any confusion.

Don't know what tool that is, I'm afraid. I do things using the computer equivalent of parchment and a quill. However, a citation can take two basic forms:

• a numbered footnote, where the number appears in the text at the relevant point in order to support the statement made & links to the full detail of the source in the References section (the link and numbering is automatic)
• a generalised note at the end of the article, where there is nothing in the text to which the cite could realistically be attached using the previously mentioned system. The first system is much to be preferred but there are always exceptions.

So, which way are you trying to go with this? I'm not into gaming etc but this is a techy/style issue and so can certainly help you out if you give me some more detailed pointers. I can see the links in your message above but am unsure where you are wanting to put them. Perhaps you are also! <g> - Sitush (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't worry about hassling me - you are not. However, it would help if when you write a msg like you did above then you end it by adding 4 tilde (~) characters - this automatically inserts your username + a timestamp. - Sitush (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The page looks great and thanks for helping with the additions. It really means a lot to have those stories there for us. I appreciate all of the advice. Just getting my head around the coding but your edits do really help. I was using Provelt to add the references but instead of editing that template, it was just dropping the code into the page wherever the cursor was. Yeah, thanks. :) I have saved off the code you used in the page and will be modeling from that from now on. Good to know I have a resource here. Thanks again. Pow2112 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

James Matheson

Hi, just wanted to thank you for adding the reflist to this article. It never occurred to me that it wouldn't have one hence I didn't scroll to the bottom (embarrased grin) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that <g> See my user page for the box along the lines of "this user reserves the right to screw up his own edits" - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I think I will "borrow" that user box. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Brothertoft

Hi thanks for yr message regarding the Brothertoft page. I am still learning all this stuff and finding it quite difficult to a) find my way around and b) write within the limits of the rules :S its pretty tough. Im taking a break for a few as yes it is a bit exasperating, but I do appreciate your reasoning. Panderoona (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Adarsh shreeramleela samiti khanpur ghazipur

Hi. Just to let you know I've semi-protected Adarsh shreeramleela samiti khanpur ghazipur for a couple of days, to try to dissuade attempts to edit from IPs and new registrations - if the same continues with the other similar articles, let me know and I can semi-protect them too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. I'm keeping an eye on things anyway because I have a merge proposal in place for three of them. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I won't leaved you Talkbacks - I presume you're watching my Talk page (as I'm watching yours) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Brothertoft

Oops, we're both editing that pesky part in Brothertoft. I see I need an edit to the parenthesis - but did my clarification clear up your edit. Or should the discrepancy info be placed at the end of the paragraph? Thanks!!!

I see you're back at work on Brothertoft. Is there anything you need help with?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in with anything if you want time out from Van Gogh etc. I've just reorganised the headings - there is a standard article format for towns etc but we've actually got enough for a minute village to justify moving to that format. I can't believe ow much information there is on this topic. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the way you've reorganized the headings - looks nice! Yes, there sure has been a lot of info for this little village. It's a topic that is a bit out of my element, but if you have something specific that you'd like help with, let me know. Great job!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sitush

I have quoted a different source, Mr. Nagaswamy Former director TNAS's website. Now ok? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not ok as far as I can see. Where on that page does it mention the points you have added to the template? Perhaps cut and paste the relevant bit here? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

>> http://www.tamilartsacademy.com/journals/volume8/articles/article7.xml "The sixty Sub- castes are generally called Kuttam, or Kulam or Gottiram". No bad intentions:)Konguboy (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Don't know how I missed that. Who is the good Dr.? The site does not look to be very "academic" and does look to be a bit POV. What books/articles has he had published? Books and articles are always more likely to be reliable than a personal website, which is what this looks like. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also for Konga

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=u8vvtDI9kt0C&pg=PA417&dq=konga+vellala&hl=en&ei=YtarTa6NE4bVrQeOjfGnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=konga%20vellala&f=false

)Konguboy (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston is not reliable for this sort of stuff. He merely recites the rumours given to him. You need a modern source, not one from the early 1900s. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nagaswamy

http://www.google.co.in/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=nagaswamy+former+director&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7d10910c73ca4389

He even resolved the AIT debate on Horses in The Hindu! http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/2002/05/21/stories/2002052100060200.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much of The Hindu but you've made your point! Still, if you can find a printed source it would be better. Thanks for your time, though. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston not reliable!?

Come on. CATSI is based upon the census of 1881, 1891, etc..,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Thurston

)

Konguboy (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CATSI is based on a lot of stuff, not just the census. Most of what it contains is based on the old myths, Sangam literature and commentary from people before him. Unless you are saying that his precise point is based on the census then it is not reliable. And, to be honest, I wouldn't trust an 1881/1891 census for this sort of thing anyway. If the subject is significant then it will have been covered in more modern works. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On Konga

Konguboy (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)http://www.google.co.in/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=kongadesa+rajakkal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7d10910c73ca4389

Kongadesa Rajakkal is an antique history on the Kongu region. remember it is Konga desa and and not Kongu desa!:)

ID 122.178.166.198 is constantly warring on the template by adding unreferenced information that Kunbi are realated to KVs. I have tried to make a consensus but it seems like vandalism.

Please look into this

The IP has made one edit in the last six weeks. How is that warring? - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Konguboy (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)== Why I dont cite ==

Konguboy (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)What i site goes into vapour in another 2-10 days by some other anonymous user!

Not an excuse. In fact, if you do cite then there is less chance of that happening. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK would do that from now on. Also look into the Kunbi edit war!

No, I won't, You have said both that the IP was warring and that you had sought consensus on the template. Neither was true. The IP has made one edit, you have made one contribution to the template talk page (and that was in a foreign language and therefore contrary to policy). I am not sympathetic to people who mess me about, sorry. Better things to do with my time than go on wild goose chases. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your help. I made a post at the wp:an.Vrsti (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Perrins

I've reviewed the article here and put it on hold to fix a few small issues. Shouldn't be too hard to sort though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Passed now; great stuff! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Excellent article on Isaac Perrins. I've also been casually researching Isaac as my great grandfather Arthur William Perrin (without the 's') claimed to be a direct descendant of him. I know that Isaac had a bother called William that went with him when he signed up to fight Johnson. I have Isaac's wife as Mary Biggs (1760 - 1800). Do you have any more details about his family? In particular did he have children and if so what were their names and dates? Anything you have on his family may be the vital missing links I am looking for. Thanks.

Luke 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigandy817 (talk • contribs)

Perrins is an absolute pig of a man to trace. I am aware of his brother but have not found a [[WP:|reliable source]] that would allow me to crowbar the guy into the article. There are, of course, letters & records in the Boulton & Watt Collection which relate to him & may just have some extra info that would be of use to you. However, my gut feeling is that there were no children of his marriage. I looked just about everywhere regarding this but I think that the giveaway may be the epitaph. The book that describes the epitaph was written long enough after the event that it is likely any children would have died; and it was customary in those times to add the names of post-deceased close relatives to gravestones/memorials.

On the other hand, it is known that he sang in choirs from time to time. If you presume from this that he was a religious man then it might just be possible to track down baptisms etc based on approx dates & locations. Probably one heck of a lot of work, though, and there is no guarantee. Another angle would be to see if an Isaac or Mary Perrins (or Perrin) appears in Manchester street directories after 1801 and perhaps try to make a connection that way, based on the traditional notion of naming the first child after the parent. A long shot again, but not quite as long. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The most useful info I have found so far regarding his family is the following passage that I downloaded from the Black Country History website.

Conveyance Ref No: DSCAM/2/1/22/1 Date: 22-23 March 1798 Description: Lease and release by Isaac Perrins of Manchester, Lancashire, engineer and William Perrins of Bedworth, Warwickshire, engineer (the two sons and devisees of Edward Perrins late of Toll End, parish of Tipton laias Tibbington, Staffs., engineer, by Sarah his first wife), and the Revd John Whittingham of Gorton, Lancashire, Clerk (brother and heir-at-law of Jane Perrins late of Tipton, widow, deceased, the second wife of Edward Perrins; and uncle and heir-at-law of Edward Whittingham Perrins, deceased, only son of Edward Perrins by his second wife), and Joseph Wainwright of Dudley, Worcs., surgeon and John Threlkeld of Bilston, Staffs., yeoman (trustees), to Joseph Granger of the parish of Dudley, yeoman, of their various interests in 6 messuages and 1 acre of land in Netherton, parish of Dudley (tenants given); consideration of 250 paid to Messrs Perrins (one third) and Whittingham (two thirds). http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/GB145_DSCAM_2_1_22_1/

I have also had the feeling that Isaac never had any children, but could prove it either way. I have also tried to find information on his brother, William, but can't find anything on whether or not he had children either. I'll keep checking article for any updates and I'll let you know if I find anything else useful.

Luke 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigandy817 (talk • contribs)

DYK for Brothertoft

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue Sox page

Hey, fixed the citation tag problem (though that really threw me for a loop for a second, haha). And I'm sorry if I'm being an idiot, but how do the notability guidelines for articles (a baseball player must have played at the AAA level or in a minor league all-star game in lower levels) apply to a player's being mentioned in a page section? As a professional alumnus of the team about whom the article is written, wouldn't he merit a mention in an alumni section on the page? Thanks for being civil and starting a conversation by the way. Kithira (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a rule of thumb thing. If we do not do this then lists become untenably long, and this applies to all sorts of subjects rather than just sports players. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the easiest, most consistent way to do so is to invoke the WP:N guidelines. You'll see it happening on pages for towns/cities etc, on those for schools and colleges ... and just about everywhere else. I'm not sure why you have not seen the convention before but it certainly should apply to Blue Sox. Remember also that lists in articles are discouraged in the first place (I know, I know, this is a rule that sometimes seem to be observed more in the breach than in its application!). Create a separate "list" article, although even then the notability convention would usually be applicable. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I just have trouble looking past the line that opens to WP:N page- "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Thus, the information within articles need not be subjected to as stringent notability guidelines as the article topic itself. In any case, I wouldn't think an article titled "List of Holyoke Blue Sox professional alumni" would meet WP:N. I'm not exactly prepared to haggle over policy though, so happy editing, and thanks very much for the conversation. Kithira (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll check with an admin. I think you might be reading WP:N a little too literally. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing to consider: don't send a list to do a category's job. I'm not sure List of Holyoke Blue Sox players would be a useful list, because it would be so prone to incompleteness. However, Category:Holyoke Blue Sox players would be appropriate to group together those players notable enough to have articles in one easy-to-find place. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Does using a category not put things straight back with the notability issue? I mean, unless someone has their own article then they cannot be added to a category. And if they do not have their own article then should they be mentioned in a list contained within the team/club article? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: actually, WP:N specifically says that it does not apply to the content of articles, which is weird since I've seen people applying it everywhere. However, WP:NOTDIR #8 and WP:NOTWHOSWHO might also kick in. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

John Francis Yaxley

Hi the rules for speedy delete for A7 are that there is no claim of importance, a CBE is such a claim, and so is the deputy secretary of a Hong Kong department. Your aunt's hypothetical article may be eligible to survive a speedy delete. An AFD can delete based on lack of notability, but not a speedy delete. There are references to support facts, but I am not convinced they support notability yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested PRODs should not be re-added

Would you please consider self-reverting this? According to WP:PROD, anyone may contest a PROD after which it should not be re-added. If you have issues with the article, you should take it to AfD. Favonian (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Wasn't aware of that, since the remover of the PROD did not address the concerns. The concerns have been set out on the talk page for some time and the remover merely restated the points for which several editors have been trying to find sources over quite a period now. Will AfD it. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! The article definitely has "issues". Favonian (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if I can get my hearing aids in. Got problems with infections that have been dragging on for over a year now and a lot tends to depend on the day. But they're now trying some unlicensed (in the UK) treatment, so cross everything. I am profoundly dead deaf but don't worry about it: if the aids will fit then I'll be ok. (Had to leave that typo in - what a beaut!) - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Curious

Blanking just for clean up. I am a busy businessman and have to read messages at the earliest...

Just to avoid scrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooling.Konguboy (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Never come across that method before, but fair enough. It is just odd that the blanking usually seems to happen after you have been warned about something. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, FYI this user is a sock of a long time sockmaster and has been indef blocked now. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news. I'd been trying to draw the user out because it was clearly dodgy. Thanks for the update. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Musikvergnuegen

Thanks for the help! Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what to do with that editor (username), but they don't seem to be too interested in spamming the article, so I'm inclined to let it slide. What do you think? Drmies (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about PRODing it, actually. Notability is dubious at best. Then again, do I want the hassle? - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I removed the notability template given that there are at least some sources--for instance, Billboard thought it worthwhile mentioning that the company got a new executive, and that's enough of an indication for me (though I grant you it's somewhat marginal). I think right now I'd dispute a PROD, but if you take it to AfD you'd get a lot more input. I wouldn't ask you not to send it to AfD, and you would be perfectly in your right to do so. (I mean also, I wouldn't hold it against you.) It's up to you! Later, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I don't know about superior wisdom--but again, that Billboard would report it strikes me as relevant enough. I should really put that in an infobox, though, which would make it a bit less prominent (i.e., inflated). Drmies (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not worth AfD etc, upon reflection. I saw the Billboard citation after writing the comment above. Tbh, I've got enough hassle sorting out sources etc for other articles right now. You are wise cf me in the context of Wikipedia... but don't let that go to your head as I reserve the right to retract. <g> - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm going to put that in bold on my user page, and then you can't touch it, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions for you

Hi, i have been doing some editing on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musikvergnuegen and i ran into some issues regarding references. When you have some free time, visit my talk page. Thanks! Jahnda (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing on your talk page which I disagree with, ie: the reply to your comment by User:Drmies. I would stress to you that merely changing your username, as seems to be the case, does not in itself resolve the issue of conflict of interest. I have reverted your recent edit as it removed one of the items which helps to assert notability. I am not sure why you removed this. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

- I had removed that because he is no longer with the company ( the article is from 2003 ).

I did find some articles online that will let me add some more information, but i am trying to play it safe so none of the info gets wiped again (if the history shows from yesterday, you would see what i mean). Also, thanks for the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahnda (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. You need to explain such edits using the edit summary, which is the box just above where you click "save" when editing content. Failure to use the edit summary (or the talk page for the article) can often cause issues such as this. Leave the info in for now & if I haven't resolved the issue in a way that benefits the chances of the article staying in Wikipedia in 24 hours then drop me a reminder note. I am afraid that the article is at best borderline content under the notability guidelines, so removing verified information is likely to make the situation worse rather than better. Can you provide a citation indicating that the guy no longer works for the company? - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i understand the reasoning. I alwyas left the box blank, as i didnt expect so many eyes to be watching ( not that i was trying to do anything wrong or fictious anyway). As for the citation for the other guy, i can not imagine that anything public outside of company records would show that he is no longer here.. however, this being a 'pedia, maybe the info should stay.. for historical purposes.. Jahnda (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts re: history are exactly mine. I need to think about how best to deal with it, and it is 00:36 here in the UK, so perhaps not the best time to think! As for the edit summary, it is best to assume that the entire world is watching (even though they are not). I've just deleted some stuff at Smuggler on the grounds of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball etc. This is awkward territory and I may change my mind, but my gut feeling is my action is correct. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, even before I came here I figured that the guy had left, voluntarily or not. But yes, it's verified information, in a reliable source, and therefore notable. That he's gone can be added, but you can't simply erase it. Thanks Sitush. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Janhda - All of this is fair enough, thanks and get some rest.. i need to do some more research as well. i have an article from http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_la_grapevine_66/ . is there anything there i could use?? thank you both for the wisdom that is wikipedia. Jahnda (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Drmies. I haven't actually read through the cited source other than extremely briefly (like, the names connect & Billboard is RS), which is why I wanted a pause to think. My brain is scrambled with the Indian caste system right now (plus a rather worrying prognosis today on my recent MI). There are fights all over the caste system article(s) & I'm probably wasting my time. but, hey, if I cannot take the word of a prof, whom I know does check his sources, then what has the world come to? I'll dig tomorrow, but basically agree with you and am happy if you want to find some suitable wording to resolve the issue. I don't like adverts and self-promotion here but if they fall inside the policies and guidelines then I have to accept them and, well, some time in the future one of them will actually mean something to me. Plus, I'd like to think that Jahnda may feel sufficiently welcome (as s/he is) to attempt work on other articles - we can use all the help that people are willing to offer. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your excellence is requested

So, you saw before that I'd gotten myself mixed up in Tamil Kshatriya. Konguboy and the other aliases of User:PONDHEEPANKAR have been blocked. However, yesterday, User:CarTick (who I know you've interacted with before) made a comment I thought was an attack on a whole group, and things got complicated; and I ended up apologizing for reacting so aggressively. Aaanywayyy... CarTick is of the opinion that there isn't actually any real group; I was at first surprised, but a closer look into the refs that I could see makes me think that xe may be right. If xe is, it may be that the article should be dumped and just redirected to Kshatriya. Both xe and I thought that your opinion would be valuable here, as we know you do great work looking closely at sources. We still haven't heard from the main author supporting the existence of the group, but your input, if you have time, would be valuable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recall the page, the sock and (vaguely) having dealing with CarTick. I'll take a look at it. Must admit that I was surprised to see the article in the first place but that was because kshatriya is, in my limited experience, a generic term for a warrior and therefore Tamil Kshatriya appeared to be rather meaningless - not a caste, a formal group etc). Anyway, give me a day or so to dig. I won't change anything without referring back to you & CarTick. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! No hurry, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Perkins...

I enjoyed your Isaac Perkins article and the quotes on the medals seem appropriate for today: "Bella! Horrida bella!" and the "Strength and magnanimity". I am happy to help out another new writer in the future - you have been such a great help to me and really have molded (and still molding) opinions about how to write strong articles to be proud of. (If it sounds like there's a thanks in there, there is!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've written an article about Issac Perkins? Must've done that one in my sleep or summat <g> The astonishing thing about Isaac Perrins (to me, at any rate) was it came from a one-liner in an article I was reading about something totally different & I was able pretty much to knock it all out in about 24 hours. The one-liner was "The engine was installed by Isaac Perrins, a prize-fighter of the day". Can't get a much smaller acorn than that.

Re: what constitutes a good article, don't take my word for it. However, I've found the two GA reviews (+ a peer review) that I have been through very useful in developing my own knowledge of what passes muster and what does not here. I would encourage you to go through the process & think that you have some suitable targets for the treatment. I doubt that I could ever do justice to the role of a reviewer but things have rubbed off on me.

I apologise for dragging you into the recent newbie situation. That one has backfired big time. Win some (you); lose some (her). Right now I can almost see the attraction in being bite-y - it would save a lot of work. But humanity wins and, well, bella, horrida bella, as you say. Let's see if we can tidy up Brothertoft and put it down to experience. I appreciate your help. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the thread that got you started on the Perkins article - fun!!

I took Brothertoft off of my watch list - but I'll put it back on for the moment. I finished the additions of citations for the Carre family. What else do you think needs to be done to finish it off?

How do I go about getting a GA review? Did you have something in mind to be reviewed?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brothertoft: Thanks for fixing the headings... I was typing away and forgot the cap issue for headings. Regarding the citations for the schools: 1) I won't have any trouble finding a good ref for the Gees and the school - so I'll work on that, 2) The 1881/parish hall is something Panderoona brought up as being separate buildings from the church and the rectory, but I couldn't find anything to verify the buildings with the 1881 date. 3) I wonder if the information about where students went after the school closed is another personal knowledge issue that we're unable to verify (or at least easily). I recommend we: verify what we can easily (Gees/school established) and unless Panderoona comes back and work on items 2 and 3, remove them from the article. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but leave it a couple of days before actually removing anything. Just in case she reappears. I've struggled with the ref for the Gees, so good luck with that! Appreciate all you did overnight but haven't read it through entirely yet. I'm sure it is fine but will give it a once-over later. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I found a ref for Gees/school, except for the part about the charitable foundation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying re: GA items etc and still not doing the review of recent Brothertoft activity. Didn't feel at all well yesterday & so backed off. Off to hosp today & then hopefully things will be a little more settled (I think some of this may be psychosomatic). - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that! I hope that they're able to ID the issue and get you on the mend!

We can touch base later. I have a couple of ideas for what articles would be good to have reviewed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you're feeling better!!! I didn't know what GA meant (Good Article nomination), but knowing that's what it meant I picked what I thought was one of my better articles Olive Trees (series) which is currently rated B in the quality scale. I've not always been sure what makes a work a C or B and haven't yet made an A rating, so it will be helpful to learn what it takes to make a "good article." Thanks so much for the suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your post above. I think that there must have been another around the same time & I saw one but not this. I'll take a look at the article myself but, hey, the GA nomination/review process is worth going through just for the experience. You'll probably learn from it. However, if you feel that something is being suggested which will compromise the article then you must say so. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! I haven't had feedback yet, but there was mention on the page of a backlog - so we'll see in good time. Enjoyed seeing the royal nuptials on TV and thought of you, wondering if it was of universal interest in the UK (and not just women like me who enjoy that kind of thing). Hope all is well!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I went shopping. Nothing against the royal fmaily etc (well, not the principal characters at any rate) but I really do not need to watch their every move. Had dinner with Diana once, which was fun. TV audience in UK was 24 million, which at least theoretically puts me in a (slight) majority! Re: GAN, it can take several weeks before someone picks up on it. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

regarding Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk · contribs) being a potential sock, i share wikipedia's general concerns about abuse and misuse of wiki policies. unfortunately, indian caste articles often attract editors who are not particularly well versed in both english and wiki policies. though they invariably show up with a big bag of bias, they do sometimes have valuable information or atleast information on places where we can find them. while this particular user (his previous avatar) has added so many references in Kongu Vellalar article, it is difficult to isolate the myth and misrepresentation from real and i lost patience once attempting to do exactly that. so, i dont know what is good for wikipedia, to conveniently get rid of them or use them for what they are good at. the latter choice is not easy and requires dedicated editors with a lot of patience. i am not blaming anyone, just thought i will share my general thoughts on this. --CarTick (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Understand, but if the user is socking then he is socking, end of. There is definitely some POV pushing going on and it is a single-purpose account but clearly being used by someone who has edited here before. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaniyar Panicker

HI Sitush,
Thought you might like to know that your 23 April cleanup up of this article was basically undone a few hours after you did it and. All the 'crap' (and more) back in. I was fixing the section headings etc and then found out you had earlier deleted a lot of text that I was wondering what to do with! *sigh* - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like I accidentally unwatched it. What do you say I restore it to my version of 23rd? The thing is, as you say in your edit summary, a complete mess. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done it ... and then cleaned it up further. Also issued a couple of welcome-but-please-cite notices to the contributors. My changes will be destroyed, of course, but if you are willing to assist then we may keep on top of things. It is helpful that we appear to be in two different time zones, both of which overlap the subcontinent zones! I am actually familiar with both of the books cited and they're both pretty crap, but I'll try to convert them into inline cites when I can. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot edit there any more for 24 hours due to 3RR, so it will have to wait for another clean up (from me, at least). Quite a bit of the new stuff added today is now cited, so I think that the first stage is a copyedit. If anything is actually removed then it needs preferably to be noted on the article talk page so that discussion can take place. There is now an admin involved & so hopefully some order will be restored. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello!Sitush. I was offline yesterday, so only just got your T'Back (Hours ago actually I was composing this message and had a (long) nap). Anything you do to fix that article up is OK with me! Don't know about 'assisting', sometimes I wish I didn't get involved in Indian 'Subcontinent' (that is a better expression) related articles at all! Sometimes it is very hard to make out what the editor is trying to say. And nationalistic/etnnic/political passions run a bit high for me. As you say Sourcing seems irrelevant, not to mention NPOV, Consensus and Notability! Edit warrring and the failure of the editor in question to reply to queries, annoying! (Just noticed they are blocked 72 hours for CopyVios! Have a nap and I miss interesting events *grumble*.) Seems this 'incident' is resolved. I'm off again, work in ≈3 hours. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article look so much better now! Good editing! Noticed Edakkadu Kukaniyal (Sankaran Kaniyar) too.(!) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem is, Kaniyar relies almost entirely on Edgar Thurston. That is a tertiary source, 100 years old and a pretty poor bit of writing (although cited frequently in Indian articles by people who do not understand how to evaluate sources). Need to find something newer, otherwise it is quite likely that the article will rapidly become little more than a couple of sentences. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

well done!! now the article appears to have got a life ...... hope i could contribute more reliable resources with references in the future. thanks for guidance in editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.141.189 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I am not sure who you are & where you think I helped you. I presume that you did not log in to post the above comment. For the record, see my earlier reply to 220.101 above - the article is far too reliant on Edgar Thurston, & so if you are aware of any other reliable sources then let's try to work them into it somewhere. An IP editor has had a crack at it earlier today but I'm afraid that most of what was added was either uncited, duplicated or (in my opinion) too much detail. That person did pick up a complete misunderstanding on my part, though, so all was not lost. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am unable to understand ,why the source reference added to the article is removed .( i.e the Book "slow flows the pamapa" By KE Varghese.) . What he narrated in his book is a mix of direct experience , historical notes and its perspective with citations . kindly guide me in this regard

                                        117.254.131.132 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing sometimes. The subtitle for the book is "socio-economic changes in a Kuttanad village in Kerala". Straight away, the implication is that this is a "micro" history, about one village rather than Kaniyans in general. If we read further then the term "Kaniyan" appears six times in the book, and the plural occurs four times. For example, on page 73 it says "The village has four Kaniyan families who are slightly superior in social status to the Izhavas. The (sic) are astrologers and are different from the taint or polluting Kaniyans ..." A couple of things stand out here:

1. there is a typographical error ("the" should be "they", and there is a double space between "taint" and "or") - not a sign of a great publisher or, at least, great proof-reading. An academic work would usually be better than this. There are similar mistakes elsewhere, eg: page 75 includes the word "Kaniyan" when it should clearly be "Kaniyans".
2. the author is referring to four families in a village, which is a minute number of people from which to draw a conclusion about the status, origins, occupations or indeed anything else regarding Kaniyans in general. Wikipedia does not permit original research, so drawing conclusions for the entire community based on a narrow example is unacceptable.

If we then try to do a search of Google Scholar, it seems to be difficult to find any reference to the author. There are plenty of citations for other people called Varghese, especially in the field of medical research, but no more than seven for K E Varghese (and some of those look to be a different person, writing about labour law). In fact, the only reasonably certain citation is this. This is not a sign of a respected, well known scholar.

I would also point out that another editor has also removed these citations from Kaniyan-related articles, and for an apparently similar reason. Sorry about this but sometimes even things we know to be true fail the tests imposed by Wikipedia. It can be very frustrating sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to update you, I have now merged Kaniyar Panicker into Kaniyar. A lot of other recently created articles have also been redirected in order to avoid unnecessary repetition etc. It is a fact, briefly discussed on the talk page of Kaniyar Panicker, that the Panicker name refers to an occupation and not the the caste as a whole. Furthermore, the Kaniyar Panicker itself was unfocussed, as it also discussed the Asan occupation. I rather think that you have edited these various pages quite heavily but are doing so using various different IP addresses etc - I would encourage you to register with a username as this will make life a lot easier for people communicating with you. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note some points. I am not sure whether they wothy of mention?

• it is undestood that in Thurston's book, the noted remark of Buchanan "very low social status of kaniyar " was a matter of 19th century(page 187).It is clear that, since 13th century, this caste were on the course of degradation in social rank as Thurston says, Marco Polo had mentioned about the social eminence of this caste as astrologers till 13th century. But their social recognition as astrologers and village school masters (teachers or Aasaan) continued through 16th and 19th century.(page 187)
• In Travancore "Asan" a corrupted sanskrit word "Acharya" (page178)
• They had learnt in "Veda"(page193) psosseed "Mantram"(page 188) and "Yantram"(page193), it points to the fact that they had learnt "Tantra"
• Panicker word from "Pani"- Military training (178) in Northern Travancore
• Nayars had obtained Kalari Form Kaniyar panickers (page180)
• Barbers of Kaniyars were known as Kani Kurup or Pothuvan (page 199).it is mentioned in the book OF KE Varghese

thanks P.Ganakan (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some are certainly worth mentioning, but some are also confusing to non-experts (eg: Mantram/Yantram is not intuitively the same as Tantra). I'll wade through them for you if you want. Anything that I consider doubtful I'll mention on the article's talk page, since that is a central place for such matters. Hope this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly consider following inclusions.

• Regarding their (kaniyar caste) the course of down gradation in social status form eminence to very low caste( as it is indirectly evident from Thurstons writing :from 13th century through 16th and till 19th century.) may be considered .
• Though Gurukkals are Kaniyar caste in real sense, Iam yet to find a published article showing this matter in web. The matrimonial advertisements in web, are the only verifiable evidence to show this link .
• It will be nice for readrs, If we add more details about past customs , grooming and god worshipping of these people.

Thanks P.Ganakan (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Indirectly evident" is insufficient - it cannot be included as it is synthesis. If you cannot find a citation for Gurukkal then it will have to be removed. Being "nice" is not the function of an encyclopedia, nor is including too much information of a trivial nature. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be essays, fan sites etc and must not present undue weight.

Really, all of this stuff should be on the article's talk page and not here on mine. I am going to copy it over there. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)