Open main menu


Advice please

I am not sure what to do about this editor, who is removing sources I found for things that needed citation. Like here [1] but they are also removing facts too. They only seem interested in one article mostly. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Usha Kiran Khan

Actually If you feel like speedy deleting it do so! But why are you always deleting the articles created by me or which I had once created? You could have deleted the link which violates copyright and improved the recent one instead of speedy deleting it. I do not by the way know how to create a Talk Page- u can help doing it.

Have you seen this Now you'll say let other unimportant articles stick to Wiki- cause wiki says no comparison. But Wiki also says that help maintaining notable articles. Or have you seen the bunch of articles created by this User [[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff| which hardly has any cites. In the interest of Wiki, do this much at least. I'll be grateful. I mean if you seriously do not want spam articles here! Good day Ananyaprasad (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of RSN posting

Just to clarify, are you saying that we should have posted a new thread indicating that there has been an RSN posting? (I only ask because, as you undoubtedly saw, Carol and I both made notes of our posting on an existing thread on the talk page.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note it on the article talk; don't go around posting notices on individual pages (as some people had been doing) - there is too high a risk of being accused of canvassing, especially if you accidentally omit someone. That is what I said and it seems clear enough to me. Get caught canvassing and you'll be looking at a sanctions warning.

I'm not convinced that you should have done this either because you were involved. There is a world of difference between being bold and being reckless. Tbh, the whole lot of you - both "sides", with the possible exception of Binksternet - seem to have opted for a very different way of dealing with things compared with that which generally applies elsewhere on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, the idiosyncratic methodology does not seem to me to be a net positive. I've not looked at everything but that is my overall impression. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that notices on the talk pages of involved editors is specifically allowed in WP policy on this matter. In the current case, with known Pro and Con editors having been noticed I see little problem this being misunderstood as canvassing. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course you believe that. There are many things that you believe that are contrary to established behaviour here. For example, since I have been recently involved on the LvMI talk page, why did no-one inform me of the RSN discussion? The scope for omission - accidental or otherwise - is too great in situations such as this. The fact that you, Steeletrap & MilesMoney seem to follow each other around with supportive comments, of which your interjection here is one of many examples, doesn't exactly help matters. Keep it all on the article talk pages and everything is sweet. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Sitush forgive me for being indirect. I'll say it differently, and then I will go away and not return to this thread: Sitush, please read the policy on noticing involved editors who have previously posted on the matter, (which in this case doesn't include yourself) and you will see that what Steeletrap did is explicitly described as OK. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, please try to assume good faith and be more polite/cordial in your dealings with other users. Even if you disagree, there is no need to be so curt. My question was clearly a good-faith attempt to get your view on the matter. Steeletrap (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The pair of you are not going to bludgeon me with some sort of tag-team effort here. Specifico, where is that policy? Define "involved". Steeletrap, where in the preceding replies have I breached WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL - methinks thou doth protest too much. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well for one, you're failing to assume good faith by accusing us of a "tag-team effort" to "bludgeon" you. I again encourage you to try to AGF and express your points cordially. This is particularly important in light of the group sanctions which have been approved on the Mises pages. Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Um. I think Sitush is referring to the two of you posting the same essential message one after the other as tag teaming and bludgeoning. I'm not familiar with whatever it is you're discussing but less is often better than more and you and Specifico may want to think about that. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, RP. But it is interesting that Steeletrap does not answer my query, which was "where in the preceding replies ...". Not being an entirely stupid person, I was asking them to clarify the point that they had already made, not inviting them to comment on the point that included the request for clarification. These two people seem often to be quick to aim accusations of bad faith/incivility etc at anyone with whom they disagree (for example, the most recent ANI thread involving them). They seem frequently to be wrong both in terms of the accusations and the point of disagreement but I live in hope that things may improve. Steeletrap, in particular, needs to be more careful in their reading of that to which they are replying. I am, by the way, one of quite a few people whom Steeletrap has banned from their talk page; that I have not banned them from mine is surely itself an indication of good faith. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Clarification: I have erred above and apologise for it. Amidst all the noise, umpteen ANI/RSN threads etc, I've mistaken Steeletrap for the similarly tendentious MilesMoney wrt the talk page banning comment. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Ends with Cob, unless of course you did that so as to hide the never ending stream of requests to remove all "the bad things" from the article   Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Damn typos! - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion, please

Have a look on my talk page - you'll find the post I mean. I don't know much about Indian matters - and it's not my job to decide the content dispute. You might have more idea and get a discussion going. I won't blame you if you just go quietly away... Peridon (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sheila Kaul may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], Lahore, [[London]], [[Lucknow]], [[Multan]], [[New Delhi]], [[Sofia]] and [[Srinagar]].{cn}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

No I don't always remove redlinks but in this case the chances of page written are negligible. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The father of Ajay Singh Yadav was apparently a member of the state's legislative assembly. I'd say that the chances of an article being written about the guy are far from negligible, especially since he would be inherently notable and thus would not require much in the way of sources. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You might be correct but I feel the contrary. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Please try to follow WP:BRD, particularly in view of the sanctions placed on the Mises page. You could be perceived to be edit-warring on the LRC page. Steeletrap (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, shut up. Your officious whinging is ridiculous. Go look at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not continue to make uncivil, personal attacks. (claiming I am an 'officious whiner' and telling me to shut up.) This warning is for your own good. These remarks could get you in trouble, since this discussion relates to Mises-related pages, on which tough standards have been imposed. Steeletrap (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, you know that I know about the sanctions. You also know that I am aware of other basic policies. You also know I know that you are only here to push a POV and that you have a habit of pseudo-polite threats and wikilawyering. The game is up.

If you intended well and really did have my best interests at heart then please be advised that I have no need for your concern nor any great desire to receive it. It certainly is a failing of mine that I can be short-tempered when dealing with people who are patently here on a mission, so why put yourself in the firing line for no purpose whatsoever? FWIW, I actually wrote "fuck off" originally and then hit backspace: that containment is about as good as my reaction will likely get in a situation such as this. I'm not remotely interested in what you do or do not consider to be civil (I happen to think that you have that word programmed into a function key, given how frequently you choose to deploy it) and if you want to avoid your perception of being "attacked" then don't act as the policeman.

Feel free to continue posting stuff here but lay off the warnings and the thin-skinned emoting. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. Your page is still on my watchlist from a message I left here some time ago. I've been avoiding you because I feel you've been generally unresponsive and uncivil. Nonetheless -- here we are, having met only through the articles now on Community Sanctions. Som in that context, I'll say that it appears to me that you still feel free to address other editors with hostility, PA, and denial of good faith. This makes no sense to me, especially while you vigorously seek to ban MilesMoney for intermittant and less personal snarkiness. In my opinion, Miles, despite his rough edges (for which I've repeatedly chided him) has made many substantive contributions to the articles on which we all, including MilesMoney, recommended sanctions. Cheers, no need to reply. I just wished to share my reaction. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, I have little choice but to correspond with you given our shared editing on the Mises pages, and your hostile remarks to me on those pages. I see that you've managed to be uncivil yet again ("thin-skinned emoting") in response to yet another polite request from me regarding your conduct. Steeletrap (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Steeltrap, oh diddums. Specifico, the pair of you are utterly obsessed with tag-teaming on talk pages, over-use of the "c" word etc. My objection to MilesMoney has been tendentiousness - you, like Steeletrap, seem to be reading what you want to see rather than what is said. I think you'll struggle to find a diff in the ANI discussions where I mention anything about MM's alleged incivility. Since you've actually said nothing of note and merely engaged in yet more tendentious/repetitious caterwauling of your opinion - which you know I already know - why bother. You're nearly as bad as MM with the TE stuff. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── These are my comments in the ANI thread that lead up to the topic ban on Milesmoney. None of them mention incivility as a rationale, nor was the original ban proposal based on it.

Meanwhile, among the various recent misrepresentations by you two is: are:

As for the sanctions themselves, you two and MM fought tooth-and-nail for many hours to prevent them from being enacted, then caved in near-enough simultaneously when it was obvious that they would be enacted. If you're going to tell a story then tell the whole story, not the bits that suit you (which I suspect is also why the POV pushing on articles is causing so many problems. By definition, in fact.) - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


I should tell you to f-off for this but, apparently, that is now an indef block offense :) Email me the concern and I'll consult the book tomorrow am. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A little "levity" - no broomstick (or mop) required ;) Mailed you. Thanks very much for taking a look. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actors cats

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Manish Vatsalya

What basis you have reverted the change . I know him personally that he was born their.Manish Vatsalya is an Indian actor and filmmaker working in the Indian film industry.He was born in Purnea , Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to verify that. We cannot use your personal knowledge, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fancy getting involved with list citations?

If you do, Talk:List of Osmania University people has two folk resistant to citing things. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not resistant to citing things, I'm questioning the aptness of including BPL template on such lists. As far as I know, BPL issues are handled on individual pages of living people. UI1990 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page, as acknowledged by UI1990 in the thread below. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


I seem to have done something wrong on the Rashmi AfD page when I pressed submit. If you look at the top of that page, you will see that the headings are wrong and one can't edit that page now. Please have a look. Thanks.Zananiri (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(Pardon the talk-page stalking.) I've fixed it.C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, C.Fred. I think I might have made things worse had I tried. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your reasoning and arguments concerning List of Osmania University people. With collaboration, many such lists can be enhanced. UI1990 (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the Bengali form নমঃশূদ্র there is no doubt , Dr N.R.Ray actually followed this spelling to write Namahsudra ; In Bengali Manas( Mind or Consciousness) + Sreeja( সৃজ্) ( To Originate ) > Manasija(মনঃসিজ), so Namas(নমস্ ) + Sreeja( সৃজ্) ( To Originate )> নমঃসিজ.However you will ,surely , consult other exparts. (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point it is that you are trying to make here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello Sitush! You have recently removed a table of Gotras of Aggarwal Community which I had copied Goel (India). It's ok to remove it page Goel (India) but I can't understant why you have removed it from page Agrawal. It was a list subdivisions of Aggarwals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjwal234goel (talkcontribs) 16:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The source was dead and not archived at the usual places, eg the Wayback machine. The content that you added would have required you to state in the edit summary that you had copied it from another article but it turns out that it had in fact been similarly pasted without attribution into the Goel (India) article. It looks like the Goel (India) article probably got the info from Gotras of Agrawal, which also no longer exists. Goel (India) has now been merged with Goyal, per a discussion that has been present since March, and I'm presently trying to tidy up all of the mess that surrounds it.

Even if the info that you copied was reinstated, it is almost certain that we would just show it as a single-column list of names - the info in the other columns of the table was way beyond the level of detail that we usually cover in a Wikipedia article. We do not often include a list of gotras anyway but it may be worthy of inclusion if we can find some reliable sources (and I don't mean a community website, because they are usually unreliable, there are often several, they rarely ever agree and they're usually impossible to attribute to an author etc). - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello I am not putting this again without discussing with you as you had suggested: She has mentioned the name of the book. And on top it is written 'Read Here' If you click there, you can read the name of the emperor in the full review. So no harm in putting it there. Or simply She is posting under this book and this book IS about Pulkasein II (plus for the full review she has written 'read here') Thanks 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananyaprasad (talkcontribs)

Ah, I missed that "read more" link, sorry. It still seems like a pretty pointless review, though. Do you have any evidence that Goodreads vet their reviewers and/or what is said by them? - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

  Happy Halloween! (Don't worry, I haven't poisoned them.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


I have added Wikipedia pages of Notable personalities and in some cases provided references of Wikipedia itself. I could not understand what other sources are required, I mean all these pages already have references been added. Yogesh.Nuniwal (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take another look at it later today. One issue is that the Ahirwal region seems not to be defined very well, so we'd need the sources to actually mention the word or we'd need to find a source that defines the area in a more certain manner.

BTw, when you sign your posts you'll find it better if you type ~~~~ (4 tildes) at the end of it. Doing that will automatically add your username and a timestamp. You could instead click on the little pen icon near the top left of the editing window but I'm not sure if that applies to everyone - there have been some changes recently. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of Notable Personalities been removed citing the reason that there were no references been provided. There are already existing pages for most of these people, where I assume references were provided, otherwise those pages would also have been deleted?
Secondly, I rechecked the list of reliable sources and got re confirmed that my previous deletes about the martial history was also not in the line of Wikipedia's content removal policy. AS Ahirwal is more of a folk region, history of it is not so much documented.
We can not write 'Martial History' iin the language it is written it has to include words from military dictionary. @sitush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh.Nuniwal (talkcontribs) 11:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A couple more quick general points:
  • I wish it were true that unsourced statements are always deleted but it is not. You'd definitely need to check whether the linked article has a reliable source that verifies where the person comes from. If there is no source at the linked article and you have not provided one at Ahirwal then I'm definitely going to keep removing the stuff.
  • As I said earlier, I'm aware that Ahirwal is a poorly-defined area. We cannot conduct original research and so we cannot assume a place lies with the area unless we have a source for that. As you rightly say, there isn't a lot of documentation concerning its history etc. Since we require verification of our statements, if there isn't much said elsewhere then we cannot say much in our article about the place. A map would be handy but I don't think that there is a reliable one out there: the region exists more in the minds of its inhabitants than on paper. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You are absolutely right when you say '..verifies where the person comes from.', SO, these Wikipedia articles have all links and references that all the people are from 'South Haryana' or neighboring eastern Rajasthan. Now I am clueless what more references are required.

Previous deletes citing references from newspaper "The Tribune" which clearly mentioned that this region is also referred as 'nursery/ mine of soldiers'. Whereas I had rechecked that a credible publication house's newspaper can be cited as references. Yogesh.Nuniwal (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There are various stories and a detailed history which is not documented but I had never put in those aspects. I only add something which is either published on a government website, or a newspaper. Please go through the details been added by me thus far and suggest. Yogesh.Nuniwal (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fact that there is a very old and pending demand of raising a regiment in Indian Army by the name of this region has been raised by two parliamentarian (MP from Mahendragarh- Sudha Yadav and MP from Alwar- Dr Karan Singh) and I had provided that reference also form a website. That was also got deleted reason beyond my understanding.

Despite providing all the references and details (either directly with article or already been provided in the referred Wikipedia pages) everything which I add is been deleted again. I would appreciate if you go through it first and then apply the most easy command - which is delete. Yogesh.Nuniwal (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I took this matter to Talk:Ahirwal because it struck me that there might be a WP:POV dispute brewing. There is a greater likelihood of additional input from interested contributors if we sort it out there. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinmoy Guha

Hi, Can you help to fix this piece? Best,Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just run the Reflinks tool over it for now. I see that there are a lot of recent {{cn}} tags in place, so the best bet is to give them a bit of time. Unless I am mistaken, there is no particularly egregious violation of WP:BLP but there are elements of WP:PUFFERY. It is now on my watchlist but feel free to ping me in a few weeks if there are no obvious improvements and/or more cruft is added. As a rule of thumb, I'd usually allow a minimum of six months to pass before deleting tagged info ... but the length of my thumb varies considerably when it comes to BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Revolt of Halagaliya Bedaru

This doesn't look real. Can't find anything on it. --regentspark (comment) 01:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Searching for Halagali Bedas or Halagali revolt (even after excluding circular sources) suggests that the subject is not an outright hoax... although it is going to be very difficult to verify or clean up the current version, or even decide what the correct article title should be. If only the article creator had cited the sources (s)he used <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If it is going to be that difficult to verify then it is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar page Nov 2013

Hello, I'm Prabhu.

1) Just want to know, why the Demographic Status was removed from the page when the source info provided.

2) Vanniyars identified as 'Kshatriya' and Government have removed Vanniyars and recognized as 'Vanniya kula Kshatriya' in Tamil Nadu and 'Agni Kula Kshatriya' in Andhra pradesh. For that source provided but that was removed.

3) I have added 4 Notables, but that was removed from the page without reason.

Yes, It was a mistake, thank you for restoring it back. Most of edits have been reverted without any reason and that makes my work as void. Do check the source before reverting the edits.

I am going to revert the edits done by you, for mentioned above 3 point and don't do edit war in future without reason.

Thanks!!!prabhubreaker (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Something for you perhaps?

Etiquette of Indian dining needs help grammar, wording so on.. Interested? Or you disapeared behind all those Elephants? Hafspajen (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen much worse! I might dabble with it but I'm not in the mood to do a complete rewrite at the moment, sorry. And, coincindentally given the subject of the article, I'm hungry after the drama of the last hour or so ... - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I remember that you said you would watch what is happening. Do you recall when a user said he will not edit his own company article because of COI here [7]? What do you think of [8] [9] [10]? I did not want to do anything at first but I am concerned perhaps you missed it? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I did miss it. I am bloody useless sometimes. I'll take a deeper look. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
MarioNovi, I think that raising those diffs is pedantic, sorry. You could indeed hold Wwwhatsup to his word but the changes made are so minor and so obviously in the interests of clarity that you'd do nothing but encourage people to dig into things that you have done, and who knows what skeletons might lie there. I'm not saying that you've done anything wrong anywhere but I really don't think that Wwwhatsup has done anything in those diffs that might even remotely be construed as detrimental to the purpose of the Wikipedia project or favourable to himself or his website. I'd let it go, if I were you. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Most are ok but he removed the quote from Hell and changed phrasing so it looks like Hell was bad and he was an innocent bystander, instead of having the quote from Hell there. Maybe I quoted too much but it can be fixed to show both sides better, now it shows only one side. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
"Quote from Hell" is a serendipitous phrase! It was way, way too much. If you want to propose an alternate version then there is nothing to stop you doing so on the article talk page. There would also be nothing to stop Wwwhatsup from expressing their opinion there, so my suspicion is that you would end up with a deadlock unless that article is watched by many. Be prepared to seek a third opinion (I can't really offer it because I've been a bit involved). - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinmoy Guha

The major contributor of the article is Suvapar82 who is an ex-student of the man while the third biggest is Anusuya Guha who is the man in question's wife! What bigger a COI than that and who knows Chinmoy himself might have wrote it, She just published it in Wikipedia. As for BLP Unsourced, that was a mistake. Others in my opinion are not. Best, Sohambanerjee1998 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That resolves the COI point, I guess, but it still looks like tag-bombing to me. There seems to be a discussion of the TL;DR sort going on and I've just dipped my toe in the article. Since the article is already tagged for POV and for various cite requests, adding that shed-load of other tags seems unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, maintainance tags warn users/readers about the hazards or the areas the article lacks and they do it upfront. Otherwise the cohesion of the article will give away the fact that its is definite COI and is not encyclopaedic in tone, so its better to give it start of the article. I should have used a lot less tags but they were necessary and I literally had to for the sake of readers! and to uphold Wikipedia's WP:NPOV which is among the WP:5P its based upon! Sohambanerjee1998 04:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sitush I tried to keep it a lot less this time and only added a handful ones. Sohambanerjee1998 04:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that you are going to have to explain on the talk page *why* the tags are necessary. For example, I see no reason to tag as COI when the article has been reviewed by several people who are unconnected and has been brought into line with other policies by that means. There is actually nothing to prevent people with a conflict of interest from contributing to articles in which they have such an interest: some people can manage it well, while others cannot. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you please redirect me to a policy (not a guideline or a recently proposed policy) that says so? I mean [There is actually nothing to prevent people with a conflict of interest from contributing to articles in which they have such an interest: some people can manage it well, while others cannot ...], I cannot take your word for that and you can never be sure since COI = Biased. BTW I like your dog, he's cute as well as has a kind of charm thats uncanny and seems pretty intelligent for a canine! Sohambanerjee1998 12:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no policy, which is why we cannot prevent it. There has been a lot of discussion about this recently, particularly in the context of paid editing. There is already a tag for NPOV on the article, although I'm not sure that now applies. Given that the article has been recently edited by various other people who are clearly not involved (including me), it isn't enough to say that there may be bias because of the principal contributors - you need to show that there is bias. If you have any additional information that may act to limit bias or if you feel that something is being overly emphasised etc in the article then you'll have to give specific examples on the talk page.

Gyp is unwell at the moment - he has got an abscess on his rear end courtesy of a bite from a fly. Right now, he looks more miserable than intelligent! - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one on similar lines WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and I doubt the man himself wrote it, his wife acted as a pen, he's rather cunning as he had foreseen that objections might arise. As for the article it started by being biased, its like a building whose base is corrupt and no matter how much you clean the upper floors one day it will come crashing down.
Are you an Indian by any chance? you look a little desi, if yes then you must be an NRI since you live in the UK and you might be from down south, reason for saying so is your name, Sitush which is pretty South-Indian-like. BTW rear-end where you live is called Arse had you been from USA it would have been @ss, you probably definitely know this but you're shying away from using profanity [Note: I don't consider @ss to be a profanity] even after using the effword [Read:F***] on a previous instance! Well thats a bit surprising. Sohambanerjee1998 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The autobiography thing is a guideline, just like WP:COI. In a sense, it really doesn't matter now who originated the article, or why. The guy is clearly notable and the article has been vetted. Sure, there may be areas for improvement - aren't there always? - and it could deteriorate into a puff piece. These are examples of why we have watchlists and collaborative editing. It wouldn't surprise me if someone eventually decides that the list of his books etc should be moved into a separate article since we already have bibliographical articles for various people and the list is quite long: we have a project somewhere who are dedicated to that type of thing.

I'm not Indian. I was born and raised in the UK. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two direct descendants who were not: one of my great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers & his wife (and presumably their forebears) came from a place in the Magdeburg area and were Moravian missionaries in the West Indies and Persia; and it has recently surfaced that a great-great-grandmother was born in Bangalore to English parents who were over there for reasons unknown. Her parents do not appear in the India List or similar, nor in any military records that I've so far found; they were themselves born in England and seem to have returned there. The great-great-grandmother married in the Chorlton area. I'd love to dig around the church records in Bangalore to see if there is a record of baptism or similar for her but, alas, I have far too many health problems to venture afar. Most of my other relatives from the Victorian period appear to have been involved in running pubs/brewing beer etc in (very) rough areas of Manchester (eg: on Bradford Street, where the Bengal Tigers operated) and working in the potteries of Staffordshire. My username is just a contraction of my real-life name: Simon Tushingham.

The bite is technically on what would be a human-being's hamstring but, yes, arse is close enough! - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, after so many hours-of-brainstorming I have concluded thats its a very hot article and going by the philosophy of Avoiding hot articles I have decided to pull myself out of the article or I'll end up in some nasty dispute and finally, ArbCom, WP:DRN and what-not! More so after the recent reactions and the unnecessary flak directed towards me at the talk page to, it has become a War-zone. I advice you to do the same. But working in Hot article has its own enamouring and thrilling experience which I enjoy the most and I think you enjoy it too.. Otherwise why in this Godforsaken world would you come to edit/revert an article on a man who is located on the other half of the world!
Change that name of yours   its confusing!Sohambanerjee1998 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If I may be permitted to join in here, Simon joined the discussion simply because I had requested him to do so. Based on his user name, I had assumed that he was from / based in Bangalore, or in a neutral venue in India, and as such would not be carried away by emotions. Cheers to both of you for keeping the indomitable spirit !!!!   Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I thought too that he was based from Bangalore going by his name, Sitush which has a desi feel to it. Sohambanerjee1998 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The moral of which might be to take heed of WP:OR <g> - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. Take care, both of you.Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

  To recover after the dramatic events of being totally and innocently blocked. Autoblocked. By some mistake or what.Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I got the impression that much of Europe was affected. Systemic bias or what? - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So they say... Had the same problem myself. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Dear Sitush, we noticed that you removed large tracts of the article on Munirka. Could you please specify why you chose to do so? The article was interesting in its longer form. Thank you.

Hi, if you look here then you will see my reasons. Basically, we require that almost all statements made in articles on Wikipedia are verifiable using reliable sources and to achieve this we use citations. The information had been unsourced for years and a notice was in place to that effect. Feel free to reinstate any or all of the information if you can comply with our policies. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddy caste

Dear Sitush, we noticed that you removed Reddy names from the article. In India people who belongs Reddy caste, They will keep their names includes Reddy as one of the word their name. This my arguments confirms, they are belongs Reddycaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariehkr (talkcontribs) 07:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it doesn't work like that here. For example, Helen Reddy is almost certainly not a member of the Reddy community. Please could you take a read of User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar 2013

Hey Sitush, Notables in Vanniyar: I have added but why are you reverting it back saying good faith and want to know the reason, Just look at this. 1) M.A. Manickavelu_Naicker he belongs to Vanniyar Community 2) N. Rangaswamy Regards, Prabhubreaker

How many more times must I explain this to you? The articles for the many people you listed need reliable sources for the claim of Vanniyar identity and the caste article itself needs to contain the same (or similar) citations. There are far, far too many problems with caste lists and thus we need to be strict. Please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


hi sitush kingdom of kashi from 17th century to 1947 is belongs to bhumihar clan.also big jamindari and morchs i have listed also totally belongs to can verify the data and search specfic words,these all mention things are on net,orcontact to government. source,pls donot delete this information.bhumihar brahmin have right to know things which belongs to thier clan,like other ruling clans maratha,rajput,sikhs etc,thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin0000777 (talkcontribs) 11:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As you will see from the history of that article, I've recently been working to improve it. In common with many of our articles about caste communities, the thing is a mess and needs a lot of work. I'm doing a lot of reading on the subject at the moment but one of the big problems in our presentation is the amount of trivial detail and repetition that is displayed: long lists of (often) non-notable people etc tend often to form a part of that type of problem and they are commonly found on caste articles because members of which ever community it may be want to "puff up" their standing.

I've not finished my reading by a long chalk but it probably will be the case that we end up saying something like "Members of the Bhumihar community were rulers of Kashi from YYYY to YYYY" and leave the detail to the linked article. You see, just because one particular strand of a large group were a ruling family does not mean that we should suggest that the entirety of the community were rulers. Similarly, for example, although some Nair families were indubitably powerful people in Kerala, the vast majority of that community were really very insignificant people. Let's see where it goes in due course, bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Delhi state assembly elections, 2013.
Message added 14:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prateek MalviyaTalk 14:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

As an OTRS volunteer, I've taken on an issue involving an article you've recently edited. I am still getting up to speed on this issues. The article is Chinmoy Guha. My initial impression is that there is some sort of dispute, and the discussion, while heated, seems to be proceeding on the talk page. Nevertheless, there may be some questions I will ask, and I wanted to explain, in case it wasn't clear why I am involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I've commented on the article talk page, although you'll see some stuff further up this talk page, where I respond to queries raised by others. There have been accusations of COI/POV but that is about all. I've tried to keep a lid on it here but I think it is probably six of one and half a dozen of the other, ie: people making exaggerated accusations about others and the others making inappropriate claims about the subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the comments upthread, but thanks for pointing them out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidencies and provinces

Hi there. You rolled back Presidencies and provinces of British India with this edit. Was there any particular reason for also removing the article from Category:Presidencies of British India? Green Giant (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

None at all. I had it in mind to reinstate the category and then it slipped, sorry. I'll do it now if you have not already done so. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted to be sure. Green Giant (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera (Queen album)

Some advice please, what should I do about this article, it has much original research but it is largely interesting and may be true but hard to confirm? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you'll need to check all of the linked main articles - eg: Bohemian Rhapsody - to see if the info is sourced in them. If it is then you should ideally move the citations over to the ANatO article. Then, assuming that there are no egregious problems of the WP:PUFFERY variety, you should attempt to source the remainder. Statements such as who wrote which track should usually be easy to source (I mean, those details are on the record label/cover). Anything that is outstanding can be tagged. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

mumbai koli people ...

Hi, I am new to editing, I am from mumbai and belongs to koli caste(native east indian of Bombay).

I can see my post has been deleted by you with some reason that I don't understand why?. I am giving some reference here for my post If possible please add this in to this page. If not possible please give me clear picture for same. Here is my statement :- "In Mumbai, Native Christians include East Indian Catholics, who were converted by the Portuguese during the 16th century, are also koli people" reference for same is "" And "" And "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talkcontribs) 13:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I explained the issues when you asked this question previously - see User_talk:Sitush#Arbirtrary_heading further up this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
- His is not the 14th controversial CM of Gujarat. -
That was a Good explanation!! You know what i am talking about!   --    L o g  X   20:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It isn't often I can combine accuracy and wit in a single edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. Probably right. Due process, AGF, and all that though. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'm tending towards WP:PACT. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I only posted a few times on this subject, and hopefully that can at least not make anything worse than it is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Beach Thomas

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


  Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


The link has been restored. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--    L o g  X   17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN discussion layout

I know you don't like the involved/uninvolved layout we are seeing on the RSN. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, not another meta-discussion generated by the Austrian Economics debacle :( This is going to end up making the Monty Hall problem discussions look like a drop in the ocean. I'd be inclined to let it die a death, crossing my fingers that CMDC doesn't keep stoking it. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
From her comment, I think she sees that the effort did not succeed in keeping the discussions focused. Citing WP:TALKO, I think the meta-discussion will be short and sweet. And serve to keep the sub-sections out of future threads. – S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It won't be short and sweet. Already, she's arguing about tiny matters of definition and poking a stick at things. I'm resigned to it: that one is not going to change and is a major cause of the problems on AE. All this bureaucratic nonsense does is make life more difficult for the 99.9 per cent of us who have no real issues regarding how to conduct discussions at various noticeboards. I've said it before: the small AE coterie have effectively devised a talk page etiquette all of their own and they're imposing it on other people. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


May I suggest you pull the curtain on that bit of drama please. I tried to get it focused on the article talk pages, but to no avail. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd no intention of saying any more in that thread. The entire thing is silly and point-y. The general issue is now at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
And so I see. I was thinking that closing the RSN would be sufficient. (It will die of its own accord now, I hope.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Please have a look at Adam von Trott zu Solz which I am working on. Someone (August 2013) has added loads of links to S.C. Bose (I know, I know) at the bottom, which, I think, are ridiculous, as the article is about AvT, not about Bose. I don't know how to remove all the Bose links. This is where you come in. Many thanks.- Zananiri (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing does look a bit overwhelming, given that Bose is covered in just two sentences of the article. We have some Bose fanatics who like to make all the connections that they can. Anyway, the links all form a part of Template:Subhas Chandra Bose, so adding {{Subhas Chandra Bose}} to the bottom of the causes the entire template to appear. As a compromise, I've amended it to {{Subhas Chandra Bose|state=collapsed}}, which causes the template to display in a collapsed state. You might want to start a talk page discussion regarding whether the thing should be there at all. You could do that at the template talk page and/or at the article talk page. The former would really be concerned with whether AvT should even be in the template; the latter would be concerned with whether the template should be in the AvT article. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It is an improvement, of course, but I don't see why it should be there at all, as his name is linked in the article, which, I think, is more than sufficient, but will do what you suggest on the talk page. Incidentally, some fan of his also inserted that bit in the article (which was really supposed to be about the 20 July plot). Donnerwetter, as Germans reading the article might say.- Zananiri (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I find the Bose entry in the Trott article exaggerated. The Indienbüro was set up by Keppler at a subsidiary of the Information Department of the German Foreign Office, as mentioned in the German WP article on Trott. In the English article, someone has translated it as 'Special Bureau for India' and an article has been created under this title with the same Bose template. I think there should be no article at all on the so-called Special Bureau for India and it was certainly not Bose who set it up. Trott was the head of the section. I will revise the AvT article later tonight. Trott looked after Bose when he came to Germany. That's it, so there is really no need for a Bose template in the AvT article. I'll add the Christopher Sykes Trott biography as a source. According to the Balliol College site, Astor commissioned Sykes to write the biography. Sykes acknowledges the help he received from Astor and had access to Trott's papers etc through his widow, Clarita, who died earlier this year.There is a chapter there called 'The Story of Bose'. Some Bose fans might not like it. Please let me know if you have any more thoughts on this matter.- Zananiri (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Since Special Bureau for India (misnomer) is not encyclopaedic, given the chronology of events I have added in the AvT article, or factually, do you think it warrants a stand-alone article with a change of title and corrections, or should it be sent to AfD? I may not be around for a few (!) days (med)- Zananiri (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly not encyclopaedic in its current unsourced form. Are you saying that there are no sources or that there are insufficient for it to be expanded in any meaningful way? My usual course of action in the event that no useful info exists would be to redirect but that is problematic here because there are two potential targets (the articles for Bose and for v. Trott). - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The only reference that doesn't trace back to Wikipedia is this one. I'd say redirect to Bose. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is Bose did not set up or viz. Subhash Chandra Bose article institute the India Office which is referred to as the Special Bureau for India. It was already there when he arrived in Berlin, as I have mentioned, with dates, in the AvT article. The Britannica article (last paragraph) is accurate regarding this and the transmission of the radio programmes which the Germans sponsored: I think the sentences have to be amended in both these Wiki articles. I agree with RP that it should be redirected to Bose and not to AvT. May I ask you to do that, please!- Zananiri (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────In the Von Trott article, you refer to it as the India Office. Given that there is only one reference to the Special Bureau outside India, perhaps it is better to prod the article since you say that the material is incorrect anyway. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That was the name of their Indian section. They had similar sections for other countries, It was not created for or by Bose.He turned up unexpectedly later. The info here is misleading which is why I suggested sending it to AfD, I don't think it warrants a stand-alone article, as the Bose article also mentions it albeit with the same error. if you look at the revision history of Special Bureau for India the earlier contributors were even nonsensesically referring to it as an 'embassy'- Hmm! I think I will leave it to Sitush to make the final decision.- Zananiri (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Just seen the PROD, RegentsPark. Thanks.- Zananiri (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd say for now, let the article Special Bureau for India be. I'll shortly be writing Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany and, if you guys don't mind, will form some opinion as I write it, and I will weigh in here thereafter. It is not true that Bose had nothing to do with the Special Bureau on India or Special India Bureau. After Operation Barbarossa (German invasion of Russia) began, Bose was pissed off at the Germans (in part, because all political parties in India, including Bose's own, Forward Bloc, had condemned the invasion). In his meeting with Woermann in the German Foreign Office, Bose—always very bold and independent minded throughout his life—lost his temper. (I mean, you'd think that if they were putting him up, at that time in a fancy hotel, but soon in a big villa, with a cook, butler, gardener, and an SS-chauffeured car, not to mention paying for his frequent gambols in Bad Gastein, with Emilie Schenkl, who was living with him in the villa, he'd be a little diplomatic with his hosts.) Woermann, then changed the topic and began to tell Bose (this was around June 1941) how the "Special India Bureau" (this is how it was characterized in the minutes of the meeting in the German archives, according to Romain Hayes) was being set up, as well as the "Free India Centre." But Bose, who was fuming, was not interested at all. Bose had arrived in Germany in April 1941, so apparently the SIB was set up after his arrival. It may have been in the works, but Bose was certainly the Reich's biggest catch (in terms of politicians from the middle-east or south asia), someone who had appeared on the cover of Time magazine (or was it Life?). As for Christopher Sykes, I hadn't heard of him, but just Googled him. He was a upper-class British popular historian writing in the 1960s. Therefore, in matters, Bosian (or for that matter American), he would be completely unreliable. :) This is more or less the heuristic I have picked up in my readings of books about Bose. I prefer American or European authors rather than British (who are still nursing their irritation with him, as some indeed are theirs about America) or Indian (who are trying to elevated him to the pantheon of demi-gods). (Academic historians such as Chris Bayly are very different in their appraisal of Bose. And I say this as someone who is not exactly a fan of Bose.) As for Trott, he's mentioned on half a dozen pages in both:Hayes, Romain (2011), Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany: Politics, Intelligence and Propaganda 1941-1943, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-932739-3, retrieved 22 September 2013 and Gordon, Leonard A. (1990), Brothers against the Raj: a biography of Indian nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-07442-1, retrieved 16 November 2013. SIB is mentioned on half a dozen pages in Hayes; Mrs. Trott is mentioned here and there in Gordon. Of course, the gratuitous Bose templates (of great nephews etc., which naturally would be many in a family that had 14 siblings) and other irrelevant Bosian-garbage should be taken out. I'll be back after I've read Gordon and re-read Hayes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not fussed either way - I've no great investment in Bose or the conspiracy theories etc. It needs some sort of sourcing but if you know that the stuff is out there then de-PROD it. Perhaps link k to this thread on the article talk page also. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Sorry, didn't see this earlier. On the basis of this reply alone, I feel someone should nominate you for admin. I would do it, but a nomination coming from me would garner you many knee-jerk oppose votes. Perhaps RegentsPark or Abecedare or Q...xian should do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I forgot to add why I had come here in the first place: both Special Bureau for India and Emilie Schenkl are now restored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I hope I am not bothering you with this request. Noida double murder case article, which involves BLP (and sensationalisation) and is too big to grasp the details, may need your attention! - Rayabhari (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is a real-life mess: the all-too-common police ineptitude and grindingly slow legal system, I've read the thing three times now and feel like I've seen a detailed synopsis of a whodunnit produced by someone like Agatha Christie for her publisher! I can see many minor issues regarding style/phrasing, grammar etc but that is because I am approaching it as a native reader of English - they are not really significant. It is a lengthy article but so too were the events that it is covering. The thing could be taken to the other extreme - reduced to four or five paragraphs - but I'd never get consensus to do that.

I've only spot-checked the sources but from that and my gut feeling, it seems to be neutral. I'd be pleasantly surprised if there are no copyright violations or close paraphrasing in there but I concentrated on the BLP issues and I really cannot see a problem from that side of things. Some names are mentioned that unnecessarily lengthen the thing but they're accurate, they're harmless in a BLP sense and removing them will only reduce the size of the article by perhaps 50-100 words. What BLP issues have I missed? - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Using different language query

Hi, I have been trying to edit some pages in Hindi Wikipedia but the supported citations or URL's are very less (of the topic in Hindi language searching) in number in comparison to the same topic in English searching. My question: is it fair to support English or other language URL's and citations for editing in Hindi Wikipedia, and if yes then up to what extent? Please elaborate. Thanking for your co-operation. Work2win (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Work2win. On English Wikipedia we have WP:NOENG as a guide to how to deal with foreign language sources. I've seen quite a few articles here that are supported only by non-English sources.
However, Hindi Wikipedia will have its own rules and I've no idea if the rules are the same or even similar. I can't imagine that they would be so strict as to stop you from using non-Hindi sources but you'd really need to ask on their helpdesk. I'm pinging @SpacemanSpiff: because I think they have contributed both to en-WP and hi-WP and so they may have some idea. Spiffy is not very active at the moment, though, and my memory of their involvement in hi-WP may be wrong also - we'll have to wait and see. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks a lot for your reply Work2win (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Religious beliefs in lists

Hi Sitush I want want to ask a question. A person who converted to Hinduism from Islam. What if he himself declares so? If he himself includes his name in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaishagi (talkcontribs) 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Khaishagi:, I really sorry about this - I completely missed your message above. I've now put it in its own section and signed it for you.

The key when it comes to us mentioning the religious belief of a person - certainly someone who is still living - is that we need to find a reliable source that shows them self-identifying their belief. It isn't good enough to find, say, a newspaper report that happens to mention their alleged belief in passing. This is covered by WP:V and by WP:BLP, with a special mention in WP:BLPCAT. Did you have anyone particular in mind? - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Sitush: You are prompt and meticulous, I really appreciate that, but I wanted to tell you about anomaly regarding this article " Sengar" , someone has maliciously put content to defame, I had seen earlier versions too but this is preposterous. U yourself can go through it and realize what I am saying. What I was doing was just put material from other relevant sources here. Hope u would allow my changes or remove the material which is objectionable, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining your concern. I'll do a bit of digging about and leave a note on the article talk page, ie: Talk:Sengar. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbirtrary heading

@sitush:- Hi dude, I am new to editing, I am from mumbai and belongs to koli caste(native east indian of Bombay).

I can see my post has been deleted by you from koli people page with some reason that I don't understand why?. I am giving some reference here for my post. If possible please add this in to this page. If not possible please give me clear picture for same. Here is my statement :- "In Mumbai, Native Christians include East Indian Catholics, who were converted by the Portuguese during the 16th century, are also koli people". Reference for same is "" And "" And "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talkcontribs) 06:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the YouTube reference because it may be a breach of copyright (see WP:YT, for example) and equally it may be unreliable. Unfortunately, I can't hear it but you could always ask at WT:INB or on the article talk page. I don't think that the article has that many watchers, so WT:INB might be a better bet.

I have to go out but I'll look at the Mumbai thing later. As a general rule, we do not use another article on Wikipedia as a citation (see WP:CIRCULAR) but it may be that we can re-use the citation in the Mumbai article at the Koli article - we'd just need to check that it is in fact accurately cited in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Try as I have, I cannot see the Baptista source that is mentioned in the Mumbai article. Can you? Or are you just assuming that because it is cited there then it can be cited somewhere else? - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you SIR for your valuable input, i appreciate. I am giving some ref also please have some comment also.

while googling i found this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talkcontribs) 05:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I will not give up, I am an east indians and belongs to koli of bombay/mumbai, will give you another ref too.

Thanks -Prashant

@Prshntsathe:, what exactly is it you want the article to say? That some members of the Koli community are Christian? Or that some of the Koli community in Mumbai are Christian? Do you want to mention that they are specifically East Indian Catholics rather than generally Christian, which is a broad church? - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Sitush:, This link "" explains you every thing. I said "NATIVE" Christian who were converted from hindu to Christian. And I don't think my statement gives any wrong information or a wrong statement. wrt to provided link If you want to 'EDIT' this statement please go ahead. anyway really thanks for considering me for adding statement in wikipedia. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talkcontribs) 07:33 30 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll have to try to work it out myself. I did look at that article but it didn't say what journal it was published in. I've managed to work that out using JSTOR - James, V. (1977). "Marriage Customs of Christian Son Kolis". Asian Folklore Studies. 36 (2): 131–148. JSTOR 1177821. - and will now have to re-read the thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguated: warrior class → Kshatriya

Hi Sitush! I wonder why you reverted my edit to Varna (Hinduism)?

I would think it should point to the Hindu relevant page not to the warrior class disambiguateion page-therefore my change.--DadaNeem (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Because Kshatriya is already linked in the article and the term is explained at that first usage. You added two further links to the same Kshatriya article and this is not recommended. As I said in my edit summary, WP:OVERLINKS is your guide. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then perhaps the best thing would be to remove the links altogether, not to have them confusing matters. Reviewing the article I see that the first "warrior class" (in the intro) refers to "estates of the realm" where the corresponding term used there is nobility. Would you agree to that change? ie "a priestly class, a warrior class, and a class of commoners" --> "a priestly class, the nobility, and a class of commoners" --DadaNeem (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is a mess. Someone with little apparent knowledge but a copy of Louis Dumont at their side has made a bit of a hash of things. I've just had a run through it and will return in due course. We really need to be placing weight on sources such as Susan Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India and perhaps M. N. Srinivas/G. S. Ghurye etc rather than the ill-informed philosophical ramblings of Dumont and the politically-charged agenda of Vivekananda & the Divine Life Society etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Y do u remov these conents madly?

Some sources shows that, the two Kakatiya chieftains, namely 'Kapaya' and 'Prolaya' were from the Durjaya clan of Musunuru family belongs to 'Kamma' caste. And 'Prolaya' was the blood relation of Veera Pratapa Rudra. They were called as Musunuri Nayaks. Kakatiyas were also called as 'Kakatiya Nayaks' (or) 'Karma/Kamma Nayaks'. Among them Beta-I (1000–50) was the earliest Kakatiya Nayak. Gonka I (first king of Velanati Chodas), was a Telugu Kamma Nayak who rose to be a Viceroy.[1]

Have you checked the article talk page? Ranga is about as reliable as I am for the history of the dynasty and POV-pushing of the Kamma caste is common on Wikipedia. The article is poor, yes, but adding poor sources will not improve it. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Valentine Williams may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *{{citation |title=Peacemaking, 1919 |first=Harold |last=Nicolson |authorlink=Harold Nicolson |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hari Singh Nalwa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • north-west of [[Rawalpindi]] in Pakistan, to commemorate Guru Nanak's journey through that region.{{sfnp|Khan|1962|p=17|ps= He had donated the gold required to cover the dome of the [[Akal Takht]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kwagga Boucher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • His regular position was [[Hooker (rugby union)|hooker]] or [[prop (rugby union)|Prop]].<ref>{{cite web |url= |publisher=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sardar Buta Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • PhD. He worked as journalist before joining politics. He fought his first elections as an Akali Dal]] member and joined the [[Indian National Congress]] in the late 1960s at the time when that party

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dayananda's criticism of religion

Regarding the dispute at Talk:Criticism of Jainism, can you take a look at the source ([11] there is a preview at google books that might help) and comment on its accurate representation in the article Criticism of Jainism? --Rahul (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see it, sure, but the idea of using an evangelical Christian publisher (ISPCK) as a source for stuff about Hinduism or Jainism rankles with me. I don't think that we usually permit them in situations such as this, just as we don't usually allow mentions of the Joshua Project except in reference to themselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So would it be OK to remove the claim and the source? --Rahul (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue for removal of the source but you'll need to get consensus unless you added it yourself. There may be other sources for the statement itself. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Would be helpful if you can say that at Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism. I have already placed a note at talk pages of WP:INDIA and WP:RELIGION for a consensus. --Rahul (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this...

Chitrakoot Colony. A recent edit changed something...when I went to look...the article appears to be without a single source and may not meet our standards for notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple issues here but notability is - alas - not one of them. It is obviously a populated place and therefore is inherently notable. A summary of some of the issues:
  • According to GMaps it is called Chitrakoot Scheme in Jaipur and is indeed surrounded by the places named - Vidyut Nagar etc.
  • GSearch for Chitrakoot Scheme places it inside Vaishali Nagar rather than adjacent to it, although GMaps does show it to the south. There are 60k hits for "Chitrakoot Scheme" versus 12k for "Chitrakoot Colony" - not all of the Colony hits relate to Jaipur but a random selection of the Scheme ones suggests that those do
  • GMaps also indicates that there is a Chitrakoot Colony at Bhilwara in Rajasthan. That is the one that is near to Ajmer Road and its near neighbours include two places sharing the names of the Jaipur neighbours but at different co-ordinates (they're south-west and still further south-west, rather than N, E and W)
  • The Jaipur Municipal City and Bhilwara District Corporation official websites make no mention of either Chitrakoot Colony but searching for the Scheme variant does turn up some hits on the Jaipur Development Authority site ... but it is barely functional due to issues with their SQL Server database.
  • So far, I've only found one passing mention of any note in a news source and that is undated - see this. sod's Law says that one does call it Colony!
  • To further complicate matters, there are numerous other places with Chitrakoot in their name.
So, I think what we need to do here is:
  1. Move Chitrakoot Colony to Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur - WP:COMMONNAME etc
  2. Create Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara, redirecting it to Bhilwara pending information that justifies a standalone article. Leave a note on the talk page giving the coordinates (I'm useless at figuring out coordinates but hopefully you or someone else can do it)
  3. Create Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation), holding Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara and Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur. Leave a note at Talk:Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation) linking to this thread
  4. Create a disambig page - Chitrakoot (disambiguation) - listing the articles where that name appears first, ie: Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot Dham (Karwi), Chitrakoot district, Chitrakoot Falls, Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara, Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur
  5. Add Chitrakoot (disambiguation) to Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation) as a "see also"
  6. If we can't find anything significant about Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur in, say, a week then redirect that to Jaipur.
Or something like that. It's a bit of a mess, eh? I've not long since woken up and now feel like I need a brandy rather than a coffee! - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow....the issues are like 5 times longer than the actual article. Just now having my first cup of coffee (I slept in very late today)...but am wishing I had more than a drop in that brandy bottle in the cupboard now.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Since I brought this to your attention, I will endeavor to make these changes shortly. Thank you very much for you assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Mark Miller:, do my proposals look right to you? Probably best not just to take my word for it because it is complicated. If you can think of an easier way forward then I'm open to suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
They are different locations, but the subject of the article right now may just need a redirect at the moment [12] and the suggested subject that you stated appears to be a larger community which may at least indicate that is more notable [13]. I like the idea of a disambig page - Chitrakoot (disambiguation) but not sure we would need one for Chitrakoot Colony. Also...I am in no hurry at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
While picking up dinner at the grocery store, it dawned on me that we could just blank the current page as a redirect, preserving even that small amount of history and then create the new article fresh.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Sitush:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 4600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

How is the logo unfree? Why choosing PNG over SVG? --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How is the size the issue? Can you link me the discussions? I can't find it at WT:NFC, unless you were referring to WP:NFR. --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was typing an explanation on your talk page at the same time as you were typing this. As explained there, the logo is at Commons and it was discussed at WP:NFCR and at Commons. I've no idea why one format should be preferred over another - images aren't my thing & seem to create an inordinate amount of confusion - but when two recent discussions + some stuff at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party have determined that it is ok, changing it seems kind of non-consensual. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
SVG is a superior format and has higher-resolution than one PNG file. It also creates superior png copies. Download the 2000px version, and... figure it out. Also, the logo is deemed too ineligible for copyright in India, unless you prove it eligible. --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Found the links you are referring: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_33#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png. Am I missing anything else? --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are the recent threads and they amount to a WP:CONSENSUS situation regarding that particular version. Whether SVG is technically superior or not is something I'll have to leave to the reader. Perhaps it amounts to a clash of consensii but one only has consensus at Commons and the other has it both there and here on en-WP. I'm among the vast majority of people who are using a perfectly normal computer display rather than some fancy colour-corrected etc version as used by graphics designers and the like - the existing format seems to render ok. Maybe it is my ageing eyes. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Can I at least change it back to SVG? Is image size that relevant to general readers? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have consensus then sure you can but thus far you seem not to have. I've not previously seen the essay that you linked but I'm still at a loss regarding why SVG = "readers first". How many of them want a 2000px image or use monitors where SVG would have an impact? As it stand, you are proposing to replace a 2Kb image with a 7Kb image and I'm not sure that you understand the potential significance of that, which goes something like:
  • The political party in question is a new one and is not even a national party in India - at present, it operates only in one region
  • In the event that it does well in the elections later this week, it may develop to be national but even then is unlikely to attract significant long-term non-Indian interest until it actually performs on the national stage
  • India is a country whose internet capability/capacity varies widely, partly as a consequence of its size and the sharp differences between the (relatively few) cities and the mass of peasantry etc and partly due to issues such as illiteracy and poverty. I wouldn't bank on cheap broadband being available to most people and thus anything that keeps downloads to a minimum without compromising on essential content is to be preferred. The WMF have been doing a lot of outreach in the country & have even reached a (controversial) deal with a mobile/cell operator in an attempt to boost contributions but in there remain substantial lags compared to, say, the US or France.
Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law of India doesn't cover the artwork well. To summarize, #1 covers the party coverage; #2 the notability; #3 the country's technological advancement. Neither point affects the image's unoriginality and copyright status. You're suggesting that I must please those at India, right? SVG too advanced for India? George Ho (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that you need consensus. A recent discussion about the copyright situation determined that it was ok. Why is this such a big deal to you? - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you are ignoring it or something. I assumed that you misunderstood the copyright status thing. Well, other non-English pages are using SVG image right now. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You thought that I was ignoring what? Consensus? I've already linked you to the discussions here and at Commons and you also found those links yourself, the latter of which arose directly out of the former. Those forms a part of the consensus and if other pages on other projects at not following it then that is their decision and is governed by their consensus. This is English Wikipedia and we do things according to our systems, not someone else's. You could argue that Commons is also a different place but since the two discussions were intertwined, I don't think it is a line that is worth pursuing. There was, of course, also discussion at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. And it is not beyond possibility that all the other usages of the SVG are themselves a breach of copyright.

I don't think that there is really anything more that I can say here, George. We'll just keep going round in circles. If you think that the copyright status is wrong then you'll need to change the consensus and explain why what seems to be a derivative work is ok. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)} Gentlemen, you are counting the angels dancing on a pinhead. Sitush makes a correct assertion about bandwidth usage, George Ho makes valid assertions about copyright, none of which it seems that Sitush disagrees with (or does he?). In the global scheme of thing 2k vs 7k is not the same as 2k vs 200k, so there will be no winners or losers either way. George Ho's argument about other items is, as we know, irrelevant. This is a genuine "Who CARES?" moment. We have vandals to fight, dragons to slay, Smurfs to befriend. Ah, no, not Smurfs. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree. Consensus is that the logo is fine in terms of copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to the bandwidth issue, do many Indian readers understand English and other country languages to read these articles? George Ho (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh. I think that you need to tread very lightly here, George. You've just been referring to an essay about reader friendliness and now you are querying the linguistic abilities of a 1.2 billion population that was in large part once governed by the British. "A fair number" is the simple answer. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputes about Austrian economics

Hello Sitush. Regarding your ANI comment. Speaking as an admin who has seen the goings-on but is not tempted to do anything at this point, there are some reasons:

  1. Admin action has to be taken for some reason. Is there anyone who can provide a neutral summary of what's actually happened?
  2. Are there any content workers who are relatively neutral and can give perspective? You played this role in the caste wars, since you knew the material and you were trying to improve the article sourcing.
  3. Is there actual misbehavior that would be easy for outsiders to check, once it was pointed out? It helps if there is a smoking gun or a problem that is easy to see if a couple of links are given.

The sanctions at WP:AEGS improve the incentives for admins to be involved, but they don't solve the problem of knowing what to actually do. Any admin action would be controversial and would need to be defended with good arguments. Nobody wants to spend hours searching through partisan diatribes to find enough facts to justify a block or topic ban. A request for admin action that was focused on a small set of facts would be worth considering. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Imma let Sitush finish, but I'd like to say a few things in response to your questions.
The core problem with the Austrian economics articles is that the field is fractured into mutually hostile camps. There's a particular faction, following in the footsteps of Rothbard, that is pretty much the only source for information about its own members. Not surprisingly, its writings about its own are deeply biased in their favor. On the other hand, when these people are mentioned by external sources, which is rarely, it is scathingly biased against them. With no truly neutral sources, everything becomes a battle.
What makes it worse is that, to anyone who doesn't have at least a working knowledge of economics and a general familiarity with these factions, it's very hard to figure out where the neutral point lies. Those who do have this knowledge are almost inevitably biased towards one side or another, and attempts at compromise have had only mixed success, partially due to personalities.
In short, it's an inherently difficult topic for Wikipedia to handle due to policies that privilege passionate amateurs above competent professionals. I think it's simply going to have to go to ArbCom, even if that results in mutual assured destruction. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ed, I don't think that subject knowledge is a pre-requisite when people are repeatedly toying with the boundaries of WP:BLP, warring and sometimes adopting a policy of silence that does seem to smack of being co-ordinated to stifle improvements etc. As I said in an ANI post of around the same time, it could well be that I'll throw some diffs out there at some point. But if I did then we'd most likely end up with just two of the present group still able to edit and I'm loathe to see things swing that far. Rightly or wrongly, there does seem to be a campaign of denigration going on right now but there'd be no-one left on one side at all and that would be taking away an arguably necessary check.

Personalities are certainly a big part of the problem, Miles, but "passionate amateurs" is not a description that can typically be applied to even non-notable professionals who hold PhDs in the subject matter. Nor is it at present the case that any knowledge of economics is required for determining neutrality/reliability/verifiability at most of the articles in the menagerie: most of them don't even discuss the principles at stake and just seem to be attempts to smear or "big up" people by one means or another.

As for the alleged failings of Wikipedia, well, happen I have faith in Wikipedia generally to do what its community wants: we don't claim to be telling the truth here, although hopefully we do for most of the time. If what you want is different, if you really don't think WP can handle AE or you think that it will always handle it in a manner that you dislike then the solution is to take your views and arguments somewhere else, not to prolong them here without any chance of resolution. As long as articles are not violating core concepts such as BLP and copyright, it's perfectly ok for everyone at present involved to leave them alone and let others take up the slack at a later stage: you are under no obligation to fix perceived problems. As for ArbCom, be careful what you wish for as I guarantee that you won't like it if it happens and I'd wager that you would end up with a complete topic ban, perhaps worse. ArbCom generally seems not to concern itself with good intentions. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, please don't polarize the issue more than it merits. There are calmly critical third party sources, and also happily praiseworthy third party sources. For instance, Joseph Thomas Salerno calmly criticizes the Rothbard position in his book Money, Sound and Unsound. Thierry Aimar calmly cites Rothbard in his book The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination, without judgement. Mark Skousen is quite praiseworthy of Rothbard in his book Economic Logic. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Bink, those sources do exist, but they are the exception and not the rule. Moreover, it should be noted that it was I, the "biased" anti-Rothbard source, who added Skousen's praise to the article. ("Biased" Miles and SPECIFICO did not object to the inclusion of this glowing, RS assessment of Rothbard.) Finally, please note that Salerno is not an "RS" but a long-time friend and co-worker of Rothbard's at Rothbard's Institute. (Your mistake here underscores the problems that inadequate knowledge about this subject/economics generally pose.)Steeletrap (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, can you please try to be more specific regarding what you consider to be "smears"? (A most unfortunate tendency of WP is for users to make bare conclusory statements "That article is biased" without any corroborating evidence; that such statements are considered to have merit is indicative of the mob-rule mentality of WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, the day that you and your tag team co-thinkers stop smearing other Wikipedia contributors is the day when I'll pay some attention to your preachings, I've said that I am not willing to see either side get into serious trouble at this point: I just want to see everyone calm down, stop being stupid about petty issues (such as "historian" or not), stop edit warring, stop forum shopping and spend more time understanding the policies that they refer to etc. Is it really too much trouble to invoke WP:DR after a reasonable period of intelligent article talk page discussion? you are, after all, seemingly without exception intelligent people. That said, you comment is a fairly typical misrepresentation of the type I noted was favoured by MM in the ANI thread: I said "smear or 'big up'" above but you have chosen to ignore a part of that juxtaposition, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has been following the issues. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Sitush, with all due respect, I don't think you realize just how much hostility there is between Rothbard's faction and, well, the rest of economics, including many non-affiliated Austrians. Anyone with an education in economics is more than aware of the fact that this particular faction prides itself on excluding the mainstream acceptance of the scientific method, to the point where its relationship to economics is akin to astrology's relationship with astronomy. Without understanding the issues, it is impossible to figure out what constitutes a BLP violation as opposed to a statement of the mainstream viewpoint.
Now, you see what I just did there? I shared an informed opinion, but it came across as completely non-neutral. That's because objectivity does not lead to neutrality when reality is biased. We're supposed to follow an objective point of view, not a studiously neutral one: that's why we are obligated to focus on mainstream views at the expense of the fringe. But if we scrupulously followed policy here, the articles would be no more pleasing to fans of Rothbard than Evolution is to Creationists.
Imagine if someone were to rely on Creationist sources for describing the views of other Creationists. That's the sort of thing that (to pick someone involved in this discussion) Bink has done in the past. He is not neutral or objective, and he's also not well-informed. If ArbCom bans us all, people like Bink (though not Bink himself, naturally) will be the future editors of Austrian economics articles, leading to massive disconnect and bias. People like you, who admit to not understanding the issues, will be the unwitting enablers.
On a side note, your barely-veiled attempts to intimidate me into giving up on these articles are an example of the sort of aggressive, counterproductive behavior that characterizes interactions. This is a serious issue, and it will not be solved by bluster. Stand down and sit up. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to intimidate. There is a commonly-used formula here when faced with contributors who don't like how Wikipedia works and that formula is "your options are to accept it, to try to cause a change of policy at WP:VPP or similar, or to walk away and say what you wish to say somewhere else on t'interweb". No-one is forcing you to do anything. As for your opening paragraph, it is full of misunderstandings:
  • Any hostility of a general ideological/theory nature is basically a matter for the core AE articles, not individual biographies, since there are basically two camps, ie: pro-LvMI/Rothbard etc or against
  • Talking down to other contributors doesn't gain you brownie points but, again, your comment about "this particular faction" seems to be an issue of relevance usually to the core articles rather than individual bios
  • A "mainstream viewpoint" is one expressed by a person who is reliable and is expressed through a medium that is itself "mainstream" - not a blogged character assassination, a second-hand passing mention in an op-ed etc. If these two camps want to spend their time taking pot-shots at each other using blogs and obscure newsletters etc then good luck to them, but such things should not be used in BLPs. Economics is a serious academic disciple and has serious publishers involved in it: stick to that sort of thing when you want to demonstrate the "mainstream viewpoint". - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed this because it contains yet another example of someone using a diff out of context, and it is a usage that they've been told about before. Feel free to rephrase. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As an addendum to Miles' point: did you know, Sitush, that Rothbard rejects (in principle!) the application of the scientific method -- including statistical methodologies, econometrics and indeed all data -- to economics? Without this information, it's difficult to evaluate the "neutrality" of Rothbard's entry. Steeletrap (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is it difficult to evaluate? I don't understand why your parentheses matter unless you're trying to engage in semantics but if he rejects those things and has said so then our bio article should say so. What is the big deal? - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Astrologers reject, even in principle, the scientific method. That's why they're not astronomers, despite some overlap. Alchemists likewise reject, even in principle, the scientific method, and that's what prevents them from being chemists. The fact that Rothbard's faction rejects, even in principle, the scientific method puts it in the same fringe category.
This simple fact is absolutely vital for understanding what constitutes a WP:BLP violation on this subject. MilesMoney (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry. What constitutes a violation of BLP is something that violates the policy. Unless you can provide verification of Rothbardians' rejection in accordance with that and other relevant policies (V, OR, RS etc), it is a BLP violation. I've not looked at the article talk page recently: has the verification been given in this manner? - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the scientific method, I think the Austrians are just naming the elephant in the room. Economics is an inexact science, if you haven't heard. (Sir Guilford Lindsey Molesworth said as much in 1885,[14] and he was no Austrian.) Those clinging to the scientific method as a talisman against the Austrians should look to their own camp and see just how imprecise and unpredictable the whole field can be. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
When I was a grammar school in the 1970s, Economics was classed as an arts subject - its academic classification has long been moot. I'm fairly sure it was a part of the humanities faculty at university also. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, my economics degree is a Bachelor of Arts, so I guess Sitush is right. Writ Keeper  08:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Your censorship of my comments is unacceptable. MilesMoney (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable to whom? Have you noticed that I left a diff in there? Did you bother mentioning the thread that caused my remark? Have you not learned a thing since you last tried that trick? Your charge is a bit rich coming from you, a person who has banned a fair few people from even commenting on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And can you remember this thread? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Or your comment here in this thread (and referring to this one) that caused me to respond with this? You appear to have a tendency to overegg the pudding. I do hope that you are not exhibiting a similar tendency when using sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And now you have done this. How many more times must people revert you and otherwise correct your misunderstandings relating to WP:BLP? - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And this, too. Given my past sightings of your problems in this area, I'm wondering whether you need to stop contributing to anything that you or someone else considers to be a WP:BLP-related matter and take it up again in a few months when you have gained a better understanding. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your contributions here also demonstrate a lack of understanding about the very policy you refer to - ie; WP:SYN - and possibly an inability to read sources correctly. That is another example from today and, as is common, you've kept arguing the point, regardless. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence of this seems unnecessarily point-y and was never going to get anywhere. You are frequently referring to what you consider to be bad admin decisions - if you think that so many admins are so bad then perhaps the problem lies within you? I mean, there are other people who adopt such a course but they, at least, tend also to be substantial and constructive content creators, copyeditors par excellence etc and I'm not seeing that here. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Another example of battlefield stuff, which has also spread to related articles. Not Aust. Ec. on this occasion but MM really does seem to like a scrap and really does like to insert criticism seemingly just for the hell of it. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you seem to be building a hit list against me (in violation of policy, naturally), I'll politely point out that this is proof that you're still stalking me, and you have been ever since you threatened me on my talk page. As part of your ongoing attempt at intimidation, you followed me to Liberty Flames to edit-war against me to remove cited material.
Essentially, your attempt to build a list of out-of-context "incriminating" diffs to use against me amounts to nothing more or less than an admission of your own crimes. I suggest that you remove this hit page immediately, especially since it violates sanctions on Austrian economics. But, hey, it's up to you. MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not stalking anyone, so please retract that absurd accusation. I've got WP:NPOVN on my watchlist, having not long since referred a query of my own to that board (it is still visible on the page as of now). I saw some back and forth there about the Rfc for Liberty. However, if you mention that diff of an alleged threat once again without putting it into context and/or make other unfounded accusations then I will shove this lot on ANI and you will find yourself blocked. You are nothing but a disruptive nuisance, even when you might have a valid point - is there any chance that you can control your excesses? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Sitush, having a jolly time reading and only wanted to comment on "pro-LvMI/Rothbard etc or against". One doesn't have to agree with the most questionable things a subject of an article has ever said or done to think that a) policy should be followed regarding BLP, NPOV and RSN and b) the article should not be used as a coatrack to discredit anyone who has ever been associated with Rothbard/LvMI or libertarianism. That's all I have to say. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I think that you are stating the obvious, Carol. Given the toxicity presently surrounding Aust. Ec. articles, it is probably best to say nowt unless you can develop a point - you'll just attract more heat onto yourself. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Hello Sir, I changed word 'culprits' because it has more intense meaning. We can use words like 'offenders', 'wrongdoers', 'convicts', 'fugitives' etc if 'accused' isn't exact fit. But 'culprits' sounds derogatory. Thank You. Ashishbirajdar (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the police were running around trying to find people but were not sure who those people were - that sort of thing still happens today. "Culprits" is a word to describe people who committed an act and is entirely appropriate. "Convicts" is definitely not suitable because they were not at that point convicted, just as "accused" won't work because it is difficult to accuse persons unknown - it can be done but it has legal overtones. "Wrongdoers" is subjective: many would argue that they did nothing wrong because they were freedom fighters (this is the "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" problem). I really do not see what is derogatory here: it is a good, solid English word. Can you give me an example of it being used in a derogatory way? Perhaps something is getting lost in translation, just as the word "communal" has a very different common meaning in India to that used in other countries. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see someone has now found a way round the problem - fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari deleted page review for creation

Hi, I have edited page "Ashok Sundari" which was previously deleted, but with the request i edited the article as a whole as best as i can. The page "Ashok Sundari" has very little reliable and supported content and citations available. I have 2 questions:

  • If an article has very little citations and content available, can that article be considered for creation.
  • On contacting @Courcelles, i got the reply that the article be moved to WP:AFC for review for creation. Since i am only a autoconfirmed user, i cannot do that, please help me for article be moved for review.

Work2win (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found your draft here. I've only glanced at the thing and can't really comment regarding whether or not it is suitable for mainspace - you have quite a few references there (good!) but I don't yet know if they are all suitable. A subject that has few sources may suffer from issues relating to notability.
An alternative to moving it to WP:AFC would be to invite people to take a look at it in its current location. I'm happy to do a bit of work on it and explain the issues (there are some, even at first glance, but those are fixable). - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only one of five? It feels like more than that. Mind you, they've banned more people from their talk page in five months than I've done in several years. I'm still compiling evidentiary stuff but find it depressing - I'll see what I can do. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Hey Sitush, We haven't interacted much but I've been watching you for a while on the Austrian Economics dispute, and I appreciate you taking the time to try and be a neutral/moderating voice on that front. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to AE, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note on Afd

I commend you for starting the Stromberg AfD. There are many more poorly/incestuously sourced BLPs of totally unnotable Austrian economists on WP. For just a few examples, see Ralph Raico, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, and Joseph Salerno. Note that they are all affiliated with the Mises Institute, and were created or heavily edited by User:DickClarkMises, a former employee of the Institute who currently edits its wiki. (Kinsella, an exception to this, actually created his own WP page after the previous version (created by Dick Clark) was deleted.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, don't canvass me about these, please. If you want to nominate something then just go ahead and do it. You know that I know of the existence of such "incestuous" articles but I'm not prepared to act as your stooge in the ongoing, highly personalised battle that exists between you, a few others and Carolmooredc etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
How specifically is the above "canvassing"? I just let you know of the existence of other similar articles; I did not attempt to persuade or frighten you into taking any specific action. It seems to me, Mister Sitush, that you are committed to being critical of other users. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Stood alone at the back and pug-ugly. Yep, I'm not here as part of a popularity contest or beauty pageant!
It is a pretty blatant attempt to get me to take a look at other articles that you consider to have parallels with the one that I've referred to AfD. Gloss it in which ever way you wish but I don't wish to see it here, whether as canvassing, a "heads up", a moan or even a presumption that I am some sort of fellow-traveller in the ongoing libertarian debates. Sorry, but I am not going to get dragged into the MilesMoney/Steeletrap/Specifico vs Carolmooredc/Srich merry-go-round on anything other than my own terms. I've said this enough times that you must surely have seen it somewhere.

I'm not involved in Wikipedia as part of some popularity contest, beauty pageant or diplomatic training exercise. I call things how I see them on this page, often with lots of typos & mangled phrasing to boot. If you don't care for criticism or are particularly thin-skinned (you are, as I recall, quick to jump to WP:NPA) then this probably will not be a pleasant talk page for you because, alas, I've not been impressed. I've been dealing with POV pushing types, wikilawyers and pseudo-neutral contributors (ie: neutral when it suits them) for too long to be taken in. Then again, I'm always happy to forgive when someone changes tack. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mister Sitush, please try to brighten up. It's the Holiday Season! Flash me a smile from time to time! (I am sure it is anything but "pug"-"ugly", as you put it.) I am making it my mission to de-Grinch you in time for the new year. Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't do holidays either & there's never much cause for special celebrations in my life. So, no cards, no presents, no feasts, no festive piss-ups. Rather than go all false, goo-ey and pleasant for a couple of weeks a year, I maintain a moderate consistency and manner throughout it. Doubtless some think I'm the cynical one but this is me: I'm not asking people to like it but I'm not short on friends, here or in the real world. They get year-round support & consideration from me rather than a fortnight of overload and nothing for 50 weeks. I may have a bottle of Joey Holt's Bah! Humbrew later ... but probably won't ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
All I hear is "Bah! Humbug!" Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC) :P Steeletrap (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That's the wordplay - see the last entry in the list here. I don't need a designated time to give someone a present, tell them they're a great friend or call round for a chinwag etc. Nor do I hold any religious belief. I'm freed of all those marketing gimmicks, social pressures/brainwashing exercises etc. Each to their own, the only awkwardness being that I don't force my views on others but some idiots (notably, at this time of year, the doorstepping godsquads) try to force theirs on me. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Doc. Duke

Good evening, Mister Grinch.

I have a reading assignment for you regarding the little tête-à-tête we're having about "bias" on the Adjwilley page. TFD claims that Doc. Duke had purged the racism from his political agenda by the 1991 campaign (the one Rothbard wrote about fondly). You are ordered, my pupil, to read the Triple-D (Doc. Dave Duke) wiki to learn about the 'development' of his racial views, as this background knowledge is necessary for you to effectively evaluate allegations of "biased editors." (Particularly insightful is the quote from Duke's 1990 campaign manager about how Duke's stubborn insistence on attacking the Jews so much prevented him from attacking the blacks as much as he should). P.S.: I totally don't mean to be condescending with the 'pupil' stuff. I don't think I'm smarter than you (though I don't think you're smarter than me by simple virtue of the haughty (not to mention just plain hot) accent). I just thought "pupil" would have resonance with you, in the event that you attended grammar school in Britain. Steeletrap (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm spending all day re-roofing my house but I'm not likely to rely on what Wikipedia says about Duke even when I have the time to look at it. It'll be about as reliable as a chocolate teapot, as most articles about high-profile controversial people are. I sort of know his reputation but if detailed knowledge of him is required to understand another article then we're doing something wrong at that other article. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Pics please! As for Triple D, if you distrust his WP, I refer you to Google and his personal website. Steeletrap (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Could not understand the comment of your last revision of claimants of Brahmin Status, I quoted from a book written by Dr.N.R.ray translated By John Wood ,Orient Longman::I have no account in Wikipedia. (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a lot of socking going on at that article and some related ones. I cannot divulge why I was concerned that you might be another incarnation of User:Buddhakahika but I am prepared to tell an administrator by email. In any event, what you added said

The results of anthropological measurements and computations concerning the Namahśŭdras are quite remarkable. As far as bodily characteristics go they are of the same line as the Brāhmaņs of north India.

and your source was this. I cannot see that source but there are evident problems:
  • The wording looks like you may have just copied the text from the source and is certainly not neutral
  • The author, Niharranjan Ray, died in 1981 and the book itself dates from sometime before 1949 - that is old
  • Anthropometry has since been rejected - it gave rise to such bizarre schools at scientific racism
  • The whole Namasudra issue has been causing problems on Wikipedia for years because of POV-pushing by members of that community. If what you said is to be included then we're going to have to balance it with what everyone else says, which would be fine if Ray was reliable for the point.
I hope that this goes some way to explaining the issues. Feel free to raise it on the article talk page (Talk:Brahmin), where it might be seen by other people. Also, it probably would be advantageous for you to register an account: it isn't required but given the problems being caused by Buddhakahika and the unfortunate similarities between you and them, it might help to offset any possible future claims that you are in fact that person. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    • I am the same user ::

Haplogroup R1a1, which has originated either in South Asia[22][23][24] or Central Asia[25][26] or Eastern Europe[27] is the most prevalent haplogroup amongst the Bengali Brahmins. The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent. A very high percentage of 72.22% among Bengali Brahmins which is also one of the highest found frequencies within world groups hints at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group.[28]

Is this not Scientific racism in a new form ?What does this sentence , "The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent.",convey? Is it not scientific racism? If this is true for a community banned for 1000 years due to Hindu Apartheid , then the data are unreliable!!! (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea where you got that quotation from. As a general rule, it is best not to get bogged down in details about genetics in caste-related arguments. They tend to be used selectively, appearing used when a community wants to claim a high(er) status but not when it would be adversely affected. For that and other reasons, such as the often-speculative/small sample/highly qualified nature of the studies and the fast-moving technology, I'm always opposed to using them. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I am the same user ::

Not only that when PNAS monitored the % of R1a1, was maximum 40% amobng Indians , and then it sored to 30% high for .......communities when indigenous studies began, same thing happened to anthropological studies also (under B.S,.Guha) and these data are used more often for these communities than not. Yes this is the Bengali Brahmin page of Wikipedia(they never mention their mtdna).Of course they are more advanced but I do not think it is for what they are claiming so; your logic is quite clear, but what is the use of screening a particular community then!!!:: (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me here, sorry. Are you saying that you think the content should be removed from the Bengali Brahmin article, are you saying that what exists there somehow permits inclusion of the Ray stuff in the Namasudra article, or are you discussing some sort of generality? Apologies for the confusion: genetics stuff, in particular, can tend to make my eyes glaze. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I am The same person::

Considering everything , I just added the book of N.R.Ray in reference. (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you and am copying this thread to the article talk page, which is where it should have been in the first place. If you wish to discuss further, after reading WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, then feel free to do so there. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I am The same person::

The discussion had been copied to talk page : It is nice: (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

      • I am The same person::

I do not know who You are and vice-versa but why can not you raise the issue of Scientific racism for the page "Bengali Brahmin" , what is the problem? Every one knows that authenticity is not above hegemony.I want to see you raise the issue at least once. (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

      • I am The same person::

The Page "Nair" has started with some anthropologist's comment ; then why an acknowlwdged Historian , Anthropologist and Socilogist , Dr N.R.Ray's reference cannot be used in wikipedia , I do not understand your logic. If anthropological categorisation has become obsolete, then why is it being used there? (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC ^^^ refrence

That is Dohakoshpanjika by Adwaibajra , given in Bangla Sahityer Itihas by Sukumar Sen : I think you are an Indian British .Use your connections to know it:

^^^ Hello Sitush,

Your Integrity that is what I was interested about and you failed.I still doubt you are a British, your forefathers must be from India , Kolkata , probabaly One of Bengali Brahmin origin.O.K.The matter is closed here.I never believed , definitely heard about it, there are purposive concerted and hidden POV regarding Caste Apartheid related issues of Hinduism. In respect of Genetic data it was proved without any doubt.Thanks .Best wishes for your future activities of Hidden and purposive POV.Good Luck.May Jesus save you117.194.203.234 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Deletion Of The Chandalas::

Hi Sitush, a great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolpurbatabyal (talkcontribs) 10:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr Batu this is a very objectional language U r using here:Bengali Chhotoloke (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley's AE pages

Hello Sitush. I understand that you've grown frustrated with the colloquy over at Adewilley/AE. I hope that at some point you will review your decision to drop off the thread there. In effect, Adjwilley's pages are like a WP Petri dish or terrarium which has replicated some of the processes which led to bad interactions in the AE articles. It's no secret that, in my opinion, the departure of Carolmooredc would set the articles back on track. I think this was clearly demonstrated by her behavior on Adjwilley's pages. I don't know, and am not inquiring as to, your view. Maybe you've "seen enough" and have made up your mind about the whole AE mess. If not, and if you decide that further participation would help you to understand the situation better, I hope you will consider returning when Adjwilley reactivates the pages. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point because it is inevitably going to end up with Arbcom. Adjwilley's exercise merely proved that the two sides are unwilling to move on either in terms of entrenched content positions or behaviour. Some things that you said were atrociously out of order, as were some that Carol and perhaps others said: the well-intentioned exercise is thus futile. I've been neutral on the content issues and that's where I'm staying but the real issue is behavioural and there have been few participants other than TFD, Srich and Binksternet who have shown any inclination to keep a lid on things. Frankly, it has been appalling to watch. If I were you, I'd start preparing your diffs now because ArbCom are not going to accept many of the claims that you have made without such things. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Some of your behavior has also been atrociously out of order, as I suspect you know. I won't disturb you again on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no. If I've done anything wrong then please do tell. Your remark sounds like a kneejerk comment but I'm certainly not perfect. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Somanth Bharti

It is same somanth bharti. He owns Madgen Solutions both as per his election affidavit and ministry of corporate affairs. His photo also was published in one of the newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


It may be a good idea to keep a "sock-closet", with diffs, so you can "quote" directly when necessary, to substantiate new suspicions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any need because the record is there in the SPI archives & it is easy to select from it. Maybe it would be useful in complex cases but they are rare and I wouldn't know that it is complex until it has become thus, so it is a chicken-and-egg situation. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


FYI, FreeRangeFrog had already reverted the edit, so your comment is now duplicated. (And I had posted a message to MM, hoping he'd fix the mistake.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Update, Bbb23 has already fixed the duplication! 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and while you were here I was on Bbb's talk page. Truly, that message is jinxed. I could have reverted Miles as FRF did but that would have lost his own message and I'm sure his deletion of mine was unintentional. I'll let wiser people than me determine how to sort this mess out. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the merry-go-round has stopped. All is fixed now. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

India MOS

Hi Sitush. I seem to recall a decision was reached (via an RFC maybe?) regarding adding translations into multiple other languages on India-related articles. Do you happen to have a link to that policy or RFC decision if you know what I'm talking about? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it here. Not sure if there is any policy regarding Indic scripts in the infobox. Know anything about that? OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The RfC then became codified as WP:INDICSCRIPT but it really was all a bit messy. For example, the Pakistan, Nepal etc projects were not explicitly informed and so the status of this when applied to articles about things/places/people that are now in Pakistan/Nepal etc is moot. Furthermore, there was a "kind of" revision that allowed scripts to stay in the case of populated places but only the script(s) that were official languages of those places. I don't think that this latter was taken to RfC but it did gain a rather vague consensus in discussions at WT:INB & I wouldn't be inclined to challenge it (although I did at the time).
My attitude to scripts in infoboxes can be seen here. Again, the original RfC was poorly framed and did not really deal with this. Not everyone agrees with my attitude but on the odd occasion that I can recall it being discussed there did seem to be consensus for it.
The whole issue probably needs a new RfC but that is time consuming and I'm not inclined to pursue it just yet. Common sense can apply to situations such as retaining scripts for native terms, eg: Varna (Hinduism) relates to a word and a concept of Vedic origin that must surely be ok to express as the original in the Sanskrit language. Similarly, it seems reasonably that the title of a movie that was originally released in Hindi should show the Hindi version of the title if that was used on publicity material etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


For the good wishes and for the story. I think I've heard it before, but one benefit of having an increasingly unsharp mind is being able to enjoy things like that all over again. As long as there's no reason to have a sharp mind on ArbCom, I should be fine... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:: Almost the Yogi Berra "it was déjà vu, all over again" situation? I would have thought that a sharp mind helps at ArbCom but is not the be-all, end-all of things because a well-formed request and the subsequent community discussions should assume that everyone involved needs a lesson in first principles. Sensibility, an ability to cut through the crap, humility, a willingness to read and re-read policy and the skin of a rhino all seem to me to be more significant attributes.
I've only been involved in one ArbCom case and I don't recall actually taking any part in it: I was named in the Doncram case from January 2013 but it was something of a reliatory naming and I was in hospital/convalescing around that time. That said, I seem to be on reasonably good terms with most of the current Arbs & that raises an interesting hypothetical: how many sitting arbs would have to recuse in the event that I was named in a future case. I'm hoping that it stays hypothetical! - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello Sitush, Please refer to the discussion between me and Rajkris in the Kshatriya talk page. Have made a point-wise reply to Rajkris on my talk page (please see here). Need your help and guidance in formatting the intro section in Kshatriya article please. Please suggest how the intro should be written..--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sorry to trouble you, but please cud you help archive all content on my talk page before the current topic Kshatriya. I tried archiving but failed (have no clue how to go about it). Many thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hi Mayasutra, I'm pleased to see that you haven't given up on us! I've archived your talk page as requested and I've also taken the liberty of setting up autoarchiving with some code right at the top of your page. You can fiddle with the details (how often to archive, how much etc) to suit yourself but I thought that you might find this more convenient - if you don't then just let me know & I'll turn it off. You've also now got a searchable archive box there, so that you get more easily dig out old stuff if you need it.
I'll certainly take a look at the kshatriya thing but it won't be until tomorrow or perhaps even Saturday. Can it wait that long? Is the world going to end before then? Would anyone bother telling me if it was? - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, Very many thanks for archiving, setting up autoarchiving. Never expected such a quick response. No prob, the kshatriya thing can wait. Am traveling next week and may not have internet access until early Jan. Please take your time and see how the intro can be formatted. Many thanks again.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Ok. I hope that it is a pleasant trip - it reads as if you're off to see the family. I'll drop a note with Rajkris so that they know what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush. Am going with the family. Just hoping snow does not ruin things....--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hello Sithush. Thanks. I will have a look this WE. I am really busy in my prof life, so not much time to write wiki articles unfortunately.Rajkris (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rajkris, This has been a long standing issue. Previously my response to you (here) went unanswered (I request Sitush to take a look at that response too). Thanks, --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Good that we're all talking. Obviously, the Kshatriya article is quite a significant thing and this is reflected by the number of articles that link to it. You're both aware that I'm not unfamiliar with the subject matter and, yes, it is a tricky one. All this said, there is no rush to resolve any issues that either of both of you might think are present in the current version. It would be great to improve it but we are not (I think) dealing with a situation that involves copyright violations or potential slurs against identifiable living people (the WP:BLP issue). That you're both constrained by real life situations is no big deal: I'll do some reviewing of what has been said and will do some digging myself. When we're all around then we can progress things but until then work and family matters are far more important. And, Mayasutra, don't worry about the snow! - nothing can ruin spending some quality time with our families. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I should have added that the chances are quite high that I will be in hospital for the next stage in my medical saga sometime early 2014. That might throw a spanner in the works but it is all a bit vague at the moment. The person who will make the decision and do the op is someone whom I know from my days playing rugby ... and since I'm also responsible for fixing his computers etc, I think it is in his interests not to kill me off! - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
What? Again? Take care Sitush. Health is most important. Everything else can wait (wiki won't be the same without you around for a while though; hope its not too long). Get well soon.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
To Sitush : Take care of your health. All the best. - Rayabhari (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, regardless of our conflicts, I wish you good health. Operations sound scary, but it's good that you're dealing with your problem instead of letting it continue untreated. MilesMoney (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, all. The timing is still up in the air but it will happen. @MilesMoney:, I've been no stranger to the surgeon's knife over the last 50 years and am likely to remain on familiar terms with it: a combination of rubella and the propensity to do daft things like put an angle grinder through my steel toecaps will ensure that. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Wish you a successful operation, and a long healthy life ahead.... Ekdalian (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Share your opinion?

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Former Janata Party politicians

Category:Former Janata Party politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Elites in India
Thank you, Labutnum of the Encyclopedia, for quality articles on people in India Under British Rule, such as James Tod, and for calmly carrying on, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 339th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you both. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


I would be grateful if you would be willing to clean up the article Islam and Sikhism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawabmalhi (talkcontribs) 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't have the time or inclination to look at these comparative religion articles. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Soham (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor clans/gotras

Hi! You have been PRODing and getting many minor clan and gotra articles deleted. Its evident from existence of various such article that they are of interest to some people. (That "some" is true to say if they all are not created by socks.) In some cases you also have passing references of names in various books. Given that they are of interest to people and that we have some reference that such a name is used to refer to some clan/gotra, why not simply redirect it somewhere? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I do redirect, if it is reliably sourced etc. I haven't PROD'ed that many but I was told at VPP that this was the acceptable way to go. Don't forget that notability requires discussion about the subject in multiple independent RS - if none exist then the article should not be here. There is no article for my last name, why should there be one any other non-notable last name? - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well... i haven't followed your all PRODs. So if you say you have PRODed only those that really were worthless, then i will believe you. But hey, notability for having articles is way much different than of having a redirect. Are you sure you don't have article of your surname? There is a disambiguation-like page present. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
An article about a last name would have to discuss the name, eg: Sharma. That article also illustrates another potential usage which sometimes is seen, ie: what effectively amounts to a disambig page that lists all people with the name who do have articles. In the absence of notable people or information concerning the name itself, the thing would have no place here. Just existing as a name is not something of any great significance, nor is an undiscussed passing mention/namedrop (sic) in rubbishy Raj sources.

An added complication with these gotra articles is that they often could be applicable to more than one caste, which makes redirecting impossible unless some sort of sourcing exists. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC).

AfDs -- technical question

I'm trying to figure out the relationships between WP:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting & WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People & the AfDs which get listed in Category:Proposed deletion and WP:AFD. (I do see him (Riggenbach) listed in CAT:AFD/B.) It looks like the first two are actual AfD discussions. Am I correct in thinking we have three forums for such nominations? (If you have a short answer, I would appreciate it. If it is more involved, please ignore and I will figure this out myself.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea. I've never really looked into delsorting but thought that its purpose was akin to categorising, causing an AfD to appear in various related sets that were in turn transcluded by various Wikiprojects. That said, wasn't Riggenbach the nom that that Twinkle barfed? Maybe that is where the problems crept in? - Sitush (talk)
Okay. Thanks for your thoughts. – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hello Sitush. Hope you remember me. I have some doubts about nominating a few "related" wiki articles for deletion. The articles that i intend to report are Tamil American & Tamil Australian. While i understand that the terminology "British Tamil", although unofficial, has been mentioned in news articles, the other two, namely Tamil American & Tamil Australian are totally unheard of. Neither of these countries (United States & Australia) have used these terminologies for "census, immigration & other govt" purposes nor have their media used them in their articles & reports. These people have always been called/listed/reported as "Indian American/Australian" or "Sri Lankan American/Australian" based on their country of origin. The sources cited in these articles "have not mentioned them as official terms", but they simply contain some statistical data regarding the number of tamil speakers. I'm sure this factor doesn't qualify for the creation of these articles in wikipedia. I haven't seen a "Gujarati/Malayali/Sindhi American" wiki article and i wonder what's the need for editors to create such pages. Are we going to allow these frenzied creations/edits of some lingo fanatics? Do they fall under "no indication of importance deletion criteria"? I guess Kannada American & Bengali American too qualify under the same category. Thanks in advance. Hari7478 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

They look very dodgy to me. You're probably aware that there is a lot of coatracking of Tamil subjects, although I've never managed to work out why that group is so particularly prone to it. However, I think you should probably raise these two articles at WT:INB - find out if there is indeed more notability of the subject than is apparent to you or me. Then take them to AfD if there isn't. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. But i'm wondering how do i go about with it. Well, i know the procedure. But... could you suggest a title/heading? Hari7478 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've opened a pre-AfD discussion here. Let's just get a feel for the notability before pushing it to AfD> - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've reposted the same in the WT:India noticeboard. I've also reported the Kannada American & Bengali American pages. Hari7478 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Sitush, Have redone the Vellalar article. Need to expand the (new) section on Mutts; which will do once I return to base next month. In the meantime, please go thru Vellalar and fix anything amiss. Also need to redo the article on Velirs. Will be glad for your involvement in the Velir article. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hello Sitush, Deleted the section on Mutts (for now) in Vellalar article. Will contribute to that section once I return. Please also go thru Velirs to fix things amiss. Have asked for citations and made notes in the Velirs article. Need to expand the article with more historical content though (for now clarity is poor). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hello Sitush, Rajkris has deleted content which I had thoroughly referenced, detailed and arranged in proper sections in the Vellalar article. Instead he reinstated the old version where he either misquoted or partially quoted references. Request you or Qwyrxian to look into it. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
He has removed my contents without any discussion. He's breaking wiki rules.Rajkris (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. Rajkris, you neither reply to points raised in talk page, nor do your citations support the sentences you make. You make your own fanciful interpretations such as this sentence "However, the Vellalars are still considered to be the most likely descendants of the Velir, etymological interpretations notwithstanding" (see this) So now I suppose either Sitush or Qwyrxian or both will intervene or this will go to arbitration. Sitush and Qwyrxian, the issue involves two articles, Vellalars and Velirs (Rajkris deleted well referenced content for both articles). Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Please note Rajkris is edit warring on Kshatriya. He is reverting without discussing.-Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
He is also edit warring on Velirs. Same issue. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
I have added refs in talk page of Velirs. Regarding Kshatriya, I have discussed in talk page, I will add my comments on your talk page very soon.Rajkris (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Kshatriya, you have not discussed at all. My previous response to you also went unanswered. When are you going to reply? Looks like you want to keep reverting and then keep claiming you will reply. Why don't you reply then revert to your claims? Regarding your most recent change on Vellalar both Sailendra Nath Sen and Venkatasubramanian do not say Vellalars are of the ancient Tamil order (Chera/Chola/Pandya/Sangam era). Where is the reference for your claim that Vellalars "had close relations with the different royal dynasties"; and that "Literary, archeological sources trace the origin of the Vellalars to a group of royal house chieftains called Vel or Velir."? Already explained to you Iravatham Mahadevan does not use the word Kshatriya so why are you again mentioning the term Yadu "Kshatriya" clan; especially when Iravatham Mahadevan makes it clear he thinks Velirs are aryanized descendants of original non-aryan people. Moreover that part has to do with the Velir article. Why is it being mentioned in the Vellalar article. Made it clear to you Rajkris, if you want to claim Vellalar descended from the Velir you must A) Provide info / details, if vellalars (all present-day claimants of vellalar caste) follow or followed indo-aryan kshatriya rituals until the recent past? B) Produce a precolonial or historical proof (inscription / epigraph) linking Vellalar to Velir. Merely quoting modern writers of colonial period who sought such a connection won't do. Why did you delete content from pingalanikanthu and tivakaram stating Vellala was a synonym for Vaishyas and Shudras in the 10th century? Why did you delete info from 1891 census? Why did you revert citation provided for other castes claiming Vellala status and intermarrying with Vellala families?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
I have other sources I will add by this week. All your refs are present. Else please add. Regarding Kshatriya, I will add my comments this week.Rajkris (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Now Vellalar article is fixed. Unless you meddle with it again. Next is Velir and Kshatriya. For Kshatriya, first you provide your answer. You were given ample time to respond. Unless you answer, you have no right to keep reverting. Merely claiming you will answer at some point of time won't do. First answer then revert. So am reinstating Kshatriya article to former version. Next is Velir article for which you reverted all the referenced content. For Velir too, first answer then revert. Take a look at the notes within the article asking you to (1) quote verbatim from the sources, and (2) explain relationship between Satyaputras and Velirs (since Satyaputras are mentioned as a group distinct from the Cholas and Cheras which are made up of Velir chieftains). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


@Mayasutra: and @Rajkris:. I get after Rajkris for removing material that has been sourced when Mayasutra comes along and does the same exact thing. I don't know either one of you. I don't know who is right, wrong or somewhere in between. All I know is both of you complain about the other person and turn around and do the exact same thing. Both of you are behaving badly.

I've reverted the last Vellalar edits made by Mayasutra for removal of sourced material. I've reverted the edits and reverts on Kshatriya to the December 15th edits, the last edit before you both went at it.

If either one of you edits Kshatriya, Velirs or Vellalar, I'll block the person for edit warring. You have a choice. You can talk together like civilized people then do mutually agreed upon edits or neither one of edits the pages. As Sitush unfortunately knows what is going on better than I do, he can chime in when he gets back from the hospital. Don't know if he is there or not, but after to reading what has been going on today, he probably did get sick and checked himself in.

Ok. I saw the message and stopped adding content to Vellalar. Please compare what Rajkris deleted and what I did. Finally Rajkris reinstated exactly my version in the Vellalar article, except the Intro. I had my reasons to delete what he wrote in the intro. Please check the Velirs talk page. Posted stuff for him less than 15 minutes ago. I expect Rajkris to discuss those posts before entering content into the Vellalar and Velir articles. And if I know Sitush, surely he did not get sick reading this; for there are worse things Sitush has handled. I'd rather wait for Sitush to get well and handle this. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hi, before discussing, I will first readd the ref contents removed by Mahasutra without discussion in Vellalar (still some to add) & Velirs pages.Rajkris (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Rajkris, No means no. Do not add any material. Leave articles alone. Discuss with Mayasutra before making any changes. You two need to come to an agreement before doing any changes. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. But I just added in Velir what he has removed and added ref to support that. This is what you proposed me earlier.Rajkris (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I did propose that before, then both of started more edit warring. Instead of the adding, reverting, adding, reverting cycle, you two must talk first. I reverted your edits. Note: I left two articles in a state where Rajkris edited last and one article where Mayasutra edited last. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi all, apologies for the delay. I'm not feeling too good right now (nothing to do with hospital).

Bgwhite is correct: Rajkris and Mayasutra need to discuss the changes before implementing them. I'll try to get involved in any discussions but cannot promise when. Both articles have been subject to a lot of on-off disruption over a prolonged period and I have the feeling that it is not a black-and-white situation. When I do take a look at the talk pages, I'll be expecting to see refs to reliable sources and if any GBooks snippet views are among them then I'll be expecting co-operation in putting those views into context (ie: you'll need to be able to provide a copy of at least a couple of pages before and after the snippet and preferably the entire chapter). I'll also be expecting the sources to be modern and preferably academic - not stuff from the Raj period or newspapers etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, Since you are involved now, I'd prefer it if all of us discussed points on talk page but you do the actual writing in the article. That way neither myself nor Rajkris can get into an edit war or get biased or unfactual or counterfactual. I do have internet in some places where am traveling but cannot contribute to discussions pertaining points in an article, unless I return to base next month. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Kumar Suresh Singh

Survey of people of India by KS Singh is not relible source? what sort of sources one should refer to while using citations for certain gotras/clans etc, could you eloborate on that?.ThanksMkrestin (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The People of India is a massive set comprising two series. The "national" series is reliable and was published by Oxford University Press; the "states" series went through numerous publishers and had little oversight from Singh (who died part way through anyway). It is the latter series that is not WP:RS. It has been discussed at WP:RSN somewhere in the past but the gist is that it basically reprinted content originally written by Raj gentleman-ethnographers/historians such as H. H. Risley and James Tod, often without even acknowledging that it was doing so. Anything used from the states series needs first to be checked against those old, unreliable sources etc, eg: to ensure that it is not plagiarised amateurism. The entire PoI project was also massively influenced by political considerations: it was not an independent exercise and was closely tied to events such as the Mandal Commission, meaning that much of its output, as with the Raj publications, was driven more by a desire to set a political story than to investigate using accepted methods of anthropology. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, to answer your main query: modern peer reviewed ones published by academic presses etc. Most of these gotras are simply not notable and only appear as passing mentions anyway. There's a related thread regarding this & PRODs two or three sections up above. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What if the sun is shining and it's raining dogs - or the cats are shining and the rain sees dogs - or something like that

Whatever...   Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

India Against Corruption

Read your note on perceptions of "legal threats". It was because you again raised wandering into legalities that we felt obliged to clarify further - to you and to nobody else (perhaps we erred by not leaving that message on your personal talk page).

IAC has absolutely no problem with waiting till as long as WMF wants, provided all text linking and/or associating "India Against Corruption" with Anna Hazare's (Jan)Lokpal andolan (and some other relatively minor amendments) is removed simultaneously.

We shall record our detailed objections to all sources cited by you in this articile, and shall show how you have selectively manipulated sources to disparage us.

As mentioned we are also preparing a list of secondary sources/references where IAC is mentioned.Several of them seem to have been deleted from past versions of this article, again to disparage IAC and promote "Team Anna".

Finally IAC is not here to edit Wikipedia, We are here to get corrected palpably wrong statements concerning a certain scandal where IAC name was misused by a gang of persons and we are being regularly harassed online by mischievous forces like those anonymous persons in which another experienced Wikipedia editor has just seen fit to use as a reliable source in Wikipedia to further defame IAC.

PS: If you still believe that we are not the "India Against Corruption" - but some small raucous group of persons, you should seriously sit this session out. 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RGW and don't post any more of this bilge here. You are threatening legal action all over the place despite having been made aware that the matter has been raised with the WMF legal people. I'm not frightened of you and neither you nor anyone else involved with that non-notable organisation can sue me but this is becoming ridiculous. You are repeating the same stuff across numerous forums and the only thing that is apparent from your tendentious efforts and those of AcorruptionfreeIndia before you is that no-one is seeing much merit in your claims. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

On why I don't want you posting there anymore, except of course official notices. And I don't intend to post on yours anymore unless official notices are needed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think I give a crap? I've not got your talk page watchlisted & have no intention of getting further involved in the dispute. You know both of these things - I've told you before - so why on earth you think that I might post on your page again is beyond me. So this looks like just another screwed-up, point-y post from you, doesn't it? - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You have left two new posts on my talk page[15][16] since I told you to stop. Neither we're official messages and both could have been left on the relevant talk or other pages. Please stop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


FYI, I was going through the Riggenbach links myself IOT remove. I did Thoreau and see that Rand has been done. Do you have a suggestion on how we might avoid duplicate searches?How about I do N-Z articles. (Or you can do them all!) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You just go ahead. Anything that avoids me taking more flak from the CIR brigade ;) I've got 27 tabs open in Firefox here re: India articles and really need to start using the content shown on some of them before my head (or PC) explodes. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I got about 70 hits on my search. So the edit count will continue to zoom upwards! (BTW, what is "CIR"?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:CIR. No names, no pack drill. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


  The Barnstar of Integrity
Keep going! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I'm reminded of the office notice that says "you don't have to be mad to work here but it helps". I'll be glad when this farrago is resolved but, alas, I doubt that it will ever really go away. That's the problem when dealing with activists. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Block of Rajkris

Sitush, I have blocked Rajkris for 48 hours for edit warring. In the above discussion Vellalar, I warned both Rajkris and Mayasutra that, "If either one of you edits Kshatriya, Velirs or Vellalar, I'll block the person for edit warring" if the edit wasn't done per discussion. Rajkris made an edit that you reversed saying, "I thought that the idea was we would all talk this through before adding stuff?".

If you don't agree with the block, please tell me. If you believe the time period of the block should be shorter or longer, please tell me. In the future, if you believe either editor should be blocked, please tell me and I will investigate to see if it is warrantied. Bgwhite (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:, thanks for letting me know. I've had run-ins with both of these contributors in the past and negotiations tend to take months rather than days. I'm off to bed but will have a think. My gut feeling is that a lesser time might be appropriate because the previous EW block was so long ago & the principle of escalating lengths can be punitive (imo) in such circumstances. But a message needs to be sent given what seems to be a blatant case of ploughing one's own furrow. A few hours of sleep and thought on my part will do no harm to Rajkris or the articles. - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
@Bgwhite:, would you consider reducing the block to 24 hours? It is a long time since they were blocked previously and they have done some good stuff along the way. I know that Mayasutra is travelling but Rajkris was given considerable leeway for similar reasons at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya and perhaps if they are reminded of that then they'll understand things better. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article: Khatri

I left one note in talk page of Khatri article. Please look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit request

Hi Sitush, could you please look at Dharmender Singh article, and make necessary changes if any? Regards. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks better now. Thanks. There are a few facts I'd like to clarify though:
  • All India Senior School Certificate Examination is for 12th grade.
  • "electorate comprises mainly Muslims", from what I have found, Seemapuri has a large Muslim population but not a Muslim major seat.
  • "Koli's supporters from the Aam Aadmi Party created affray outside the police station after a case was registered against him", why this sentence was removed?
  • If the seat is exclusively reserved for the Dalits, then doesn't it imply that Singh is a Dalit? — Bill william comptonTalk 15:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • AISSCE is 10th or 12th grade according to our article on that thing. He definitely left at 10th per his affidavit but our article for him had an education certificate that apparently isn't even awarded in Delhi. The solution might be just to remove mention of the certificate, ie: "He left school at 10th grade".
  • The sources I've seen - including those cited - say it is mostly Muslim
  • It was a Hindi source and, frankly, people protest at the drop of a hat in India - no big deal unless they took over the police station or wounded some police officers etc
  • I've asked about the Dalit issue at WT:INB. I'm not convinced that all members of Scheduled Castes are necessarily dalits. The seat is reserved for SCs. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Santosh Koli

Hi, would you be able to sort out or explain something that has been puzzling me about Santosh Koli's candidature? The page says that she was standing for a reserved seat, which seems to suggest that it was one reserved for women candidates, but after her death her brother won the seat. Was it perhaps not a reserved seat? I hope that you understand this material better than I do. Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I linked that phrase earlier today in the article, although you may not have noticed yet. Reservation in India is mostly concerned with caste issues, ie: positive discrimination for communities that have been historically repressed etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that India's reserved system has such broad criteria. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


Isn't he notable for that ?. Most newspapers and other material and even his biography on the AAP page quote him as a former Indian Revenue Service officer. I feel this is a significant element of his notability. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is about weight. He is now best known as a politician, although the lead rightly mentions his former IRS role also. Someone else changed it also and thus I guess you'd need to discuss on the article talk page if you want to get consensus for reinstating it. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

  Happy Holidays!!

From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You review new pages?

That are related to indian-subjects? Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes. I'm not really a new page patroller or WP:AFC reviewer but I've dabbled. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Do me a favor, have a look at this article Zoroastrianism in India, and see if it still requires patroling, because i never received related notification. And patrol if you think it should be. Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Marking it as patrolled is a housekeeping exercise. There are some problems with the article, principally relating to a lack of sources and some phrasing issues. But I'm very tired at the moment and would need also to check for things such as copyright violations and whether or not we already have an article for the subject. I'm not able to clear the patrol tag because of that.
If I were you, and assuming that you have not committed some serious sin as described above, I'd try to sort out the numerous unsourced statements and then just let things take their usual course. It really doesn't matter all that much whether the flag is cleared now or in six months' time provided that the article complies with our policies. I'll take another look at it some time when I've not just taken my meds. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Chitpavans

Mr Sitush, Why would you delete names that are patently Chitpavan and include one (Bhimsen Joshi) who isn't? शम्भू२ (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll settle for the bottle of rum! - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 December

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

  Merry Christmas!! Satya301 (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sadhu Yadav

And I didn't noticed the BLP issue, my focus was only on disamb issue. Sorry.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sitush/Archive 15".