User talk:Sitush/Archive 22

WP:INDIC SCRIPTS

Hello Sitush, i may have done one or two mistakes but if you see my editing history, 70% of my edits have been dedicated to remove indic scripts from the wiki articles, Thankyou Ankush 89 (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: ok, no problem It is a tricky area. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, can there may be atleast some exceptional indian articles which can contain the Indic Scripts in just a word or line in the initial only,for example a personality who devoted all his or her life towards the furtherance of that language or the state having the specified language as its official one? Ankush 89 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So what is this all about Ankush 89?  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I would love having someone who knows and can recognize Indic characters known to me, and, maybe, willing to proofread older texts at wikisource which regularly use them. Although I haven't set up an index for the first volume of the old Hastings Encycopædia of Religion and Ethics yet, I have done some preparation of some of the pages, and find Indic characters, and Western approximations, appear rather regularly. That is unfortunate, because I, of course, don't recognize many or most of them. Once I set the Index page up though, if anyone would be interested in proofreading the Indic or transcribed characters, I think that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Marathwada

dear user, kindly discuss on talk pages before doing drastic changes in article Marathwada, i'm undoing your edits on Marathwada and please come to talk page and make a consensus. No one owns the article. Thank you. --Human3015 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:V etc. Simple, really. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

About the authenticity of amateur historians/colonial ethnographers

Hi Sitush, As discussed in the Randhawa edit section, you mentioned that HA Rose had no formal training and had an agenda, a point which I do not disagree with. However, I would like to know why an untrained historian like Rose is not supposed to be used as per Wikipedia guidelines but another untrained one, Khushwant Singh can be cited as a source. Singh was a journalist and a novelist. His works on Punjab are of an amateur interest and prove nothing of his competence as a researcher. Also, this particular article cited on the aforementioned Wiki is a newspaper opinion piece sort of work, one of the hundreds that he wrote and there are obviously no reliable sources cited for his claims. So, basic question is - given that this wiki article has no academic sources to back it claims, why is one amateur with no formal training is more acceptable than another?

It may be that Singh is not reliable. I'm certainly not a fan of using journalists for statements such as that one. I know that he is cited a lot for Sikh-related articles but you could always test the point by asking at our reliable sources noticeboard whether he is suitable to use for the specific point made in the article in question. If you are unsure about how to do that then I don't mind starting the ball rolling but you'll probably want to have your own say when I do. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Article deletion. please do not delete

Respected sitush sir

Bhuinhar Brahmins are separate community from Bhumihar Brahmins. Bhumihar does not remain brahmin but bhuinhar brahmin are brahmin, they are branch of kanyakubj brahmins,also about marriage relation between bhuihar brahmin and saryupareen brahmins i have mention is true. what now reference if anyone want i have clearly mention villages near south east of basti city their names are narsinghpur , Nagara similarly their are twelve villages.if you does not believed then come and check your self in basti.Marriages are made in heaven. please do not merged bhuinhar brahmins with bhumihar caste which also have brahmincal origin. their are saryuparin brahmins present in bhumihar caste.it does not mean that saryuparins are not brahmin. same apply for bhuinhar brahmins . if few bhuinhar brahmins are present in bhumihar caste it does not mean all bhuinhar brahmins are not brahmin. i have mention clear reason to not delete this page truly.

with regards Manas tiwari

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME. I nominated it for deletion via our "speedy" process but will now have to take the article to our more prolonged process due to your contestion. No problem with that, although the result will almost certainly be the same. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Arvind kejriwal

Hi, Sitush I think you were involved with this articles talk page, there is some issue going on, I think you would be best neutral party to resolve can you look into it ? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The proviso to WP:CAN However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.. As a known biased editor for India topic articles, kindly respect policies and disengage. ShoeMacneil (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a sock, almost certainly of WP:LTA/IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Gurav

Anything here that can be sourced/salvaged? See also other edits by article creator. Given that they are a new user I didn't want to blanket revert just because their edits were unsourced and misformatted. Google books throws up some material, but not enough for me to source/rewrite the article. Maybe you have a better idea of where to look. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I have done what I can with the thing. I suspect that Gorava is the same subject matter - they appear to be Lingayat priests/temple servants but I can't be 100 per cent sure that it is synonymous. I have had to make heavy use of the Bapat source, which concerns me slightly because I'm unsure regarding his expertise: I suspect he will pass muster but his is not the type of background that I would usually rely on, which is a mixture of Hindu priest and academic scientist. The big positive for him is that he is published in a Taylor & Francis work and in the Asian Studies Review, as well as the less well-known International Journal of Hindu Studies. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten to watchlist the page, and completely missed your edits till you piged me. Great job! And Bapat is perhaps as good/neutral a source as one can expect to find on such a topic. Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

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

• On the Warangal page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Ankush 89 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) for indic scripts Please add some friendly language to your replies, you said no, no and you may not know my contributions to Article Solapur

You are right. I have a tendency to be quite gruff here. It isn't (usually) deliberate: there is just so much rubbish flying around that often I keep things short but forget to be sweet also. FWIW, I know you meant well with all of the scripts stuff. It just wasn't working out well, that's all. There are things here that I've learned rarely to bother with because I simply cannot understand them properly (stuff relating to images, usually) and I just think that you would benefit from adopting a similar tactic. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Final mistake regarding Indic Scripts, If i do again any rubbish about this, u can take appropriate action against me Ankush 89 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Kudos to you

		The Original Barnstar
		For your particularly excellent work in developing Gurav from practically nothing into a fine article! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That one was right up my street! - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

+1 on the kudos.

Also glad to see that your efforts were not met by complaints of ignorance, bias etc. May be there is hope for wikipedia, after all. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello your comments please

Hello, thanks for your note. What sort of reliable citations/references are acceptable plz? I am not entirely sure. There are several historical books and such sources that mention the Khattars' probable Rajput or Jatt ancestry but I would be grateful for your guidance/clarification, thanks. 39.54.138.91 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Hilda Khan , from Pakistan

Hi, our policy regarding reliable sources can be found here. Keep away from things that date to the British Raj era because they are generally useless; similarly, websites etc associated with the tribe will almost always be useless for this type of information. Something modern and academic is best. If you want, you can list here the ones you are thinking of and I will comment on them. Would that help? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks. The information here about reliable sources is very useful indeed and I will read it carefully, then I shall share the references/sources here, that I was thinking of; and would be grateful for your comments and guidance about them. Many regards 39.54.138.91 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Hilda Khan

(talk page stalker) Hilda, see also WP:HISTRS, which provides good guidance about history related sources (can be extrapolated to fields of sociology, anthropology etc). Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April

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

• On the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jat Sikh

I had added a list of all Jatt Sikh castes which you have removed calling it trivial. If someone wants to read about jatt sikh people then I cant understand how the list of all jatt sikh surnames would be considered trivial

I am myself a jat sikh and I know about all those 100+ surnames. I can provide links to other websites but I dont think you would consider them given your unsually high rigid standards on common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaldeep1985 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I use common sense and like to see reliable sources. A Good Thing here, usually. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FYKI

Here is wiki page listing just surnames in punjab . Make it trivia too. I CAN FIND HUNDREDS OF PAGES WHICH TALK JUST ABOUT SURNAMES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jat_clans_of_Punjab

An average newbie on wiki can have more common sense than wiki expert. Dont be soo arrogant about your prowess.

Are you going to make all surname pages trivia. Let me know your surname as well. I am sure I will be able to find a page here. Will u mark it trivia too ??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaldeep1985 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pathans of Madhya Pradesh

I do not understand why you keep on destroying this article even after it has been sited; I understand you concern about exaggerations and 'puffery' in tarikhs and gazetteers, however if something is true for several gazetteers or tarikhs how can you say it is true for the particular ones which I reference? You couldn't have read the whole source and tried verifying it. You then say 1876!; I did not know historical sources were not allowed on Wikipedia.

I believe that a avid Wikipedia editor like yourself would feel more obligated to find correct sources to back of questionable information than outright delete information that could be potentially correct but ill sourced.

I am a busy college student who has done a great amount of research on said topic, I am not a Wikipedia expert; instead of deleting all the information I add perhaps work with me on sourcing it correctly I would greatly appreciate that! -SAKhan2

Did you look at Talk:Pathans of Madhya Pradesh ? Seek and you shall find. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Croydon Fire Company

For what it is worth, thanks for correcting my mistake on Croydon Fire Company. I legitimately didn't realize I had previously done a WP:PROD on that page. Had I realized that I would not have simply tried again. Thanks for assuming WP:GF!! :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I make that mistake at least once a month, so you probably have some catching-up to do. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

HAHA!!! I feel much better then. :-p Hope you are well. Have a wonderful Monday. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

Dear Sitush, I have added my name in List of Yadav's and once Created My Own Wiki Page. As a user of wiki i think Wiki has been given me rights to do so. I am a living person and i hold a physical body on Earth. So why you everytime deletes my Log's and Article? Why dont you let me be a living person? Do you need a proof of my being Alive.. I hope you understand and won't do again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashuyadav974 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ashuyadav974:, it is not sufficient that you exist. I exist but you will find no article for me here. Article subjects have to be notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, otherwise this thing will just become a massive list of names that means almost nothing to most of the world and which will include thousands of people with exactly the same name, with little chance of distinguishing them unless we include very personal information.

I didn't delete your article, merely your repeated entry at List of Yadavs. However, if a subject is not sufficiently notable to justify having an article here then it is not going to be notable enough to be included in a list either. See WP:NLIST for some background to this. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your View

You yourself had stated that WP:INDIC SCRIPTS does not apply to Hinduism articles and again you are changing your opinion and blaming me?? Ankush 89 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I and others have asked you to desist from adding or removing scripts because you are repeatedly making a mess of it, one way or another. You agreed but still you continue to add/remove them and still you are making a mess of it. You remind me very much of someone else who was blocked not too long ago for doing this sort of thing. You've been warned and next time it happens I suspect that your fate will be the same as theirs. Whether intentional or accidental, you are becoming disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, since you have avoided the question previously, it might be a good idea to confirm that you have read WP:SOCK and that you are not Sumedh Tayade (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Emblem

Exactly on the second half. Suggest amending the unnecessary start, before someone cites BLP, or lest it be used as ammunition by POV warriors. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

He has a reputation for strident nationalism. That's what I meant to say and that's what I've amended while you were writing here. The display is positive but I'm not retracting the statement: the concern always was that the BJP activists on Wikipedia would be encouraged by his election victory and that is exactly what has been going on. Probably not in that thread, but more generally. If even he doesn't have a problem with our usage then we are pretty safe. No way is Modi going to take on the WMF anyhow - he'd lose in manners other than the strictly legal. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, my disdain for politicians is pretty much universal. I know a fair few very well, I've met a lot more. It is one reason why I have never voted. As a generalisation, for politician read con artist. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Churachandpur district

Hello Sitush. If you have a moment, would you please review my edits, as well as others, at Churachandpur district? My only concern is that we are presenting information which is accurate and reliably sourced. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd grade your edits as "harsh but fair", which is where I sometimes end up myself.

Taking one aspect as an example, I do not do a lot of work on articles about places but I have seen the argument "well, you could go there and see the newspapers on the stalls etc" for WP:V. Personally, if a newspaper is published in a place and can be shown to be then that is worth recording; if it is merely capable of being bought there then it is rather trivial. In this case, aside from V, there was also the problem of unverifiable circulation claims, which really had to go. I think India might have something similar to the Audit Bureau of Circulation but I don't know how deep it extends re: the regional/district/local news hierarchy.

To my mind, it is never unreasonable to require written verification here on WP, even though V itself merely says verifiability. That said, some of the deleted transport stuff - nearest airport etc - could probably be verified using a map and a set of compasses, or perhaps even this new-fangled sat-nav thing about which that the youth of today rave. Showing my age! - Sitush (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Samma Tribe

Namaskar Satush Samma tribe are the rulers of Sindh,Balochistan,Rajistan India,Punjab. They established Sammma dynasty under Jam Nizamudin (Jam Nindo) he belonged to Sindh , So there in the page/article about Sammma tribe is missing information about the Samma of Sindh. So therefore its requested you , don't delete it , I suggest you that you should research about samma tribe of Sindh as well so you can know the history of Samma ruler , samma dynasty, samma tribe , sammat as well and Rajput Sindhi. So put back SAmma of Sindh into Samma tribe. Hope you are getting me. thanks regards @JogiAsadMirwahi alias Jogi Don

See WP:V, and do not make the mistake of confusing a modern clan with an ancient dynasty as happened in the past at, for example, Yadava and Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Educationtemple on WT:IN

He is sounding like a member of this cabal - Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm. What do you think? Is it possible to ask for a check user of some kind? AshLin (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to this thread. I hinted as much when I mentioned how much hassle Philippe had been getting but I'm not 100% certain, which usually I am when it comes to that particular group. @Philippe (WMF), Bgwhite, and HJ Mitchell: thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Highly unlikely that's he's IAC. He's just an enthusiastic young Indian editor who occasionally goes off at the deep end.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I think if it were IAC then they would have laid into me by now but in fact they've thanked me or something similar (I forget exactly what and have to dash). - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I have been wrong on this in the past, fwiw, I too highly doubt it.

A good content editor, who should IMO perhaps be less sensitive to opposing view and drop the stick a bit sooner in some cases, but even that may be more a matter of sincere belief coupled with unfamiliarity with wikipedia norms/editing-environment rather than maliciousness. From their talkpage and editing history, I see that they are receiving good advice from User:W.carter, User:Philg88 et al. Best to avoid biting (which I may have edged up to in the most recent discussion), and give them some time and room. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been coaching him since he came to the WP and I don't think he is part of anything other than himself. He is bright and write good articles, but he wants to do everything at once while not yet quite familiar with how things are done here, and this sometimes lands him in trouble. w.carter-Talk 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits that you made to topic Khambi

Hello sitush. I am extremely disappointed in you that you removed much history from article Khambi which took a long time to collect. Main source for the info on that page was from personally interviewing the elders from that village. There were no books written on the history of villages or towns of India/Pak prior to British occupation so i am not sure what sources you have in mind. The information there can be verified by the inhabitants of Khambi village if you wish to book a flight and go there to verify what was written in the article then you are welcome but i doubt you ever would. So kindly reinstate the info that you deleted or i shall do it on your behalf. Chaudhri (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chaudhri: Please review WP:No original research. Personal interviews constitute original research and are not a permissible source per reliable sources. Wikipedia policy is to look for published sources.

Also, since this was your first edit, how do you know about the situation in the article—or the source of the material? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred. You mean published works like HA Rose,s Glossary of tribes and castes of the Punjab and NWFP? and other colonial works? From what i understand and what i have read on this site you do not accept those works either. I wrote that article few years back but could not remember my username/password or what email i used hence i registered again. Actually there is a book in Urdu that can confirm much of what sitush deleted i shall find the info for you. And as i stated earlier prior to British rule there was no tradition of writing history on individual towns and villages but the history of tribes was recorded by the village bards who would memorize the family ancestral history and they would recite these in poetic forms during weddings and annual celebrations. So what we know of the history of Khambi is authentic and confirmed by village bards and elders, which i wrote in that article and should be accepted by wiki. Chaudhri (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Chaudhri:, you have unwittingly hit upon two issues that are known to experienced contributors to Wikipedia's Indic-related articles. The first is that the Wikipedia model of verifiability is not suited to societies where, even today, oral history plays a prominent role; this is arguably an instance of our systemic bias. The second is that H. A. Rose made no attempts to check the oral histories, which often contradict each other and have flaws of improbability that result from being handed down over centuries - that is one reason why he is not a reliable source, although there are other reasons also. I would be extremely surprised if your Urdu source is any more reliable. I suppose you could compare the issues of village vs town/city history with that of peasants and women vs great men - the Subaltern studies idea. As things stand, and with some notable exceptions, villages do not get a great deal of attention from historians.

All this said, there is no deadline on Wikipedia and places of habitation are inherently notable. One day, someone might write about Khambi using modern standards of research, fact-checking etc; at that point, any relevant information could be included. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help

Wikipedia is being by Vanniyar caste members to promote false history of their caste. noboru karashima is wrongly quoted in many places. Vanniyar article itself has wrong information regading kadavan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I am aware of the problem. They are confusing Karashima's use of the vanniyar term as a generic regional word for warrior with the proper noun for their caste. The problem is, I'm already struggling to keep the glory-seekers at bay on hundreds of other articles and only have so many hours in the day. I've challenged them previously and will do so again at some stage. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. None of the reference provided by these caste groups are verifiable or reliable. They manipulated the words of authors. Karashima quotes have been manipulated the most. If possible can you atleast correct Vanniyar and Pallava articles. I will be glad to provide any help in this regard. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Noboru Karashima has clearly stated that present day caste should not be linked to its usage in 12 th and 13 th century inscriptions. He has clearly stated that medieval groups are different from present day communities.

http://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/439/files/2012/05/Karashima_paper_toronto_2012.pdf

Page 15 quotes in the bottom.

""As it is extremely difficult to define these groups appearing in the 12th- and 13th-century inscriptions, I here use this vague expression deliberately. A technical term for them may be jāti, as it is often used in inscriptions to indicate these groups, but we have to refrain from using this term also to avoid confusion with its present-day usage as employed by sociologists."" Sangitha rani111 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Whats Wrong Why did you removed contents of Rajpar

YOu have removed all the contents of Rajpar page. Why you did it.--Jogi don (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The only sources there were not cited. More, one of them was a blogspot-hosted website, which we do not usually consider to be reliable, and the other was about a village that as far as we know just shares the same name. We get a lot of problems with caste-related articles and it is usually better to remove content that is not obviously verifiable rather than let it fester. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken another look and it seems likely that the article will be deleted at some point. I can find no reliable sources that even mention the community. I am sure that it exists but it doesn't seem to be notable, sorry. I'll leave it for a while to see if you or anyone else can find something but it isn't looking good. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Warangal

You have removed and added certain content on the page warangal where some of the deletion is acceptable but not entire one. You have reasoned that Bhadrakali and Thousand pillar temple are not located in the city and removed them from the article, this clearly proves that you edit few articles with zero knowledge. Those two temples are located in heart of the city, kindly you can google it. Meanwhile you added "sultanpur" as one of the old names of warangal, by this you wrote a new history to it. Festivals in culture section is also deleted reasoning as no proper source, what? do you expect a source justifying Dussera, Ramzan, Christmas etc are festivals? last but not least, stop writing reasons in such a way that you are the only one contributor of wikipedia and remaining are fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.101.16.8 (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can source stuff then feel free to add it. Otherwise, don't bother. And please do not confuse the city with the district - that (and copyright violations) has historically been the main reason why various people have removed material, not just me. The festivals stuff was just ridiculous: two sentences would have covered it, with links to the main articles. There didn't appear to be anything extraordinary regarding the manner in which residents celebrated the things.

Sultanpur is impeccably sourced. I understand that you may not like it, since it is a Muslim name, but that isn't my problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

i may not like it since it is a Muslim name? my god,, how can you just say like that, seriously, this is pathetic. Once again a blind judgment, may be you dont like them but not me. Whatever, now i dont want to make a mess about that, but the city was never named as sultanpur, dont know where you got that source, but that is absolutely wrong. Orugallu was its first name and later changed to warangallu and presently warangal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.101.16.8 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, they are in Hanamkonda, which is said to be a suburb of Warangal. I am not sure if there is a riff between Hanamkonda people and Warangal, but UNESCO recognizes Warangal as a world heritage city. So, I think it is ok to put them on that page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a suburb when it suits people and a separate city when it suits them. That is the big problem, and the Municipal Authority issue doesn't help matters. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April

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

• On the Nadar (caste) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Charles Haigh-Wood entry

Re your message to me on 13 April. I'm sorry - I did remove the template as I thought I'd addressed the issue with my last edit in March by changing the source from my own research to the location of the original document in Bury Reference Library. As someone new to Wiki entries perhaps you could let me know what part of my entry doesn't comply with Wiki rules. Many thanks for your help. VictorianPainter (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)VictorianPainter (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)VictorianPainter

@VictorianPainter: are you familiar with our attitude regarding original research and primary sources? The Charles Haigh-Wood article is chokka with those issues. I do realise it is arguably an uncommon name but citing early Victorian street directories etc is pushing things beyond the limit. I am actually familiar with the directory in question, living not too far away from that library and having done my own research on Walter Whitehead (as in the monument by Bury town hall). Almost the entire article seems to rely on sleuthing and interpretation of primary sources rather than paraphrasing of reliable secondary sources etc. The latter is how Wikipedia is intended to work most of the time. Primaries can be used but only in very restricted circumstances.

I've not really tried to find sources for the article thus far but I will see what I can dig up. The best line of enquiry may well be to follow the Royal Academy trail. As things stand, it probably is a borderline deletion candidate. You could, of course, do your own thing and get it published in some peer-reviewed journal etc. Someone else might then spot your research and paraphrase it here on Wikipedia. I'm not so sure that you could do that paraphrasing yourself, however: this is exactly the conundrum that I'm experiencing with the Whitehead stuff.

Being father-in-law to T S Eliot, by the way, counts for absolutely nothing because on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've dug around without any real success. I have sent the thing to WP:AFD. For whatever it may be worth, User:Sitush/whitehead might interest you, if you like local history. I have yet to finish polishing that draft, and the polishing will involve some removal of material for similar reasons to those I describe above. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hayer clan

I know nothing about the Indian clan system but I did accept Hayer clan at AfC. You have removed a number of references from the article that appear to be from reliable sources and then added a "notability" tag. I am unhappy with this and have replaced the references and removed your tag. Please explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I explained in my edit summary that reverted you, and there was also a note on the article talk page regarding whether this thing is actually a resurrection of Heer clan.

Pre-independence British ethnographical sources are not reliable: they have been discussed extensively across literally hundreds of articles and noticeboards. So frequent are attempts to use them, almost always by cherry-picking members of which ever caste the article concerns, that Abecedare has recently prompted me to develop User:Sitush/CasteSources. If the ethnography says something detrimental, of course, the same people are keen to omit.

You might find it interesting to read about James Tod, H. H. Risley or similar. Such biographies can sometimes provide a relatively simple "in" to the myriad of problems that exist in sources such as these. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the articles you mention and I see what you mean about being unreliable sources. The topic is not of interest to me and I will leave it alone and get back to my biological realm! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, biology. That is proper science, unlike scientific racism. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to initially appreciate the push you are doing towards more reliable sources in ethnic and caste posts. It would be nice to see some clarification on why certain components of the article, such as demographics and geographic triangulations are not considered appropriate. I also find it odd why these sources are appropriate for the corollary articles, Maan and Bhullar, as well as other clan articles in your view -- I suspect it may the use of the citations? I know there's no need for a bias, but there does seem one where associated articles (and other clans) are allowed the same sources, links you must have noticed. Again, I am genuinely curious because it has certainly been difficult to find relevant, noteworthy texts. I am also bothered on why your suggestions wouldn't include using the citations but keeping the citations within the context of potential colonial bias. I think the history of clans, and how they were construed by colonizers is in itself important. A relevant example of this is the Tutsi page which does discuss how Belgians had their own interpretations of race. I appreciate your stance, especially in a sensitive area as caste, though I do think it may be preventing important, factual insight on the historical interpretation of caste. Jayrrtt (talk) 05:18, 04 May 2015

don't revert/remove the data of Samma tribe and Rajpar page of wikipedia

Mr Sitush, you are over smart , you are ignorant of history,you have done a blunder , first you have removed all the contents of Sammma tribe page of Wikipedia, then I again with hardship have managed to write information of samma tribe. Now again you have reverted it . it's not fair , Samma tribe is definitely Samma are a Rajput clan of Sindhi Rajputs (Sindhi: سنڌي راجپوت) are Sindhi people belonging to the Rajput community and living in Sindh, Pakistan. Samma have been the rulers of Present day Pakistan including Sindh,Balochistan,Rajasthan India. you have done a blunder with History of Samma tribe as well as History of Sub-continent, History of Sindh. I hope its enough to realize you the seriousness of this issue which you have created , so now if you are astute and understand the seriousness of this you would refrain from doing such a blunder any more and you have to give back data of Samma tribe and Rajpar page as well. --Jogi don (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr.Satush give me explanation why you removed the previous content of Samma tribe ?. --Jogi don (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been given explanations. Wikipedia requires that almost all statements are verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Neither you nor I are a reliable source, nor are Raj ethnographies, nor are open wikis such as jatland.com. I realise that you may not like this, and I know that our inability to accommodate oral history is an example of our systemic bias, but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

We need you, Sitush .... May you come out of the unnecessary iBan discussions & continue with Happy Editing sessions soon - Ninney (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather

I have just imposed an interaction ban on Lightbreather, prohibiting her from any interaction with you. The ban is one-way because in the latest incident the misconduct seems to have been primarily hers, but that is not an endorsement of your conduct. I strongly advise you to keep the greatest possible distance from Lightbreather. If there were further conflict between the two of you, I would have no hesitation in making the interaction ban two-way. I think it is in the best interests of the project that you both find something to focus on that is not each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Roger Davies. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Have nominated {{Country data Mughal Empire}} for deletion. Informing you given our previous discussions and your input at article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

iBan: You and Lightbreather

I've suggested on Lightbreather's talk that an iban is between you and her is probably needed to wrap up all the loose ends. At the moment this is just a heads up rather than a formal notification of a discussion starting up. Best is NOT to comment on her talk about it.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already commented on your talk. I've no intention of commenting on hers. IBAN me and I am gone. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom's habit of handing out blocks/bans as if they were sweeties is certainly a problem. You may not have noticed, but LB is continuing to badmouth you and me even today on her talk page. In one thread today I'm mentioned no less than 26 times would you believe! Yet all parties have to be equally punished, so we're going to be prohibited from doing something neither of us had any intention of doing anyway, while LB once again gets away with murder. I wouldn't take it personally though, it's pretty much what always happens in these situations; I'll simply be ignoring my iban anyway, as I have absolutely nothing to say to LB and would prefer to be as far away from her as possible. Eric Corbett 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You do what you do, Eric, but I'm not accepting it as a matter of principle. The suggestion seems bizarre, and the length of rope already excessive. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Eric Corbett 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, you said on Roger's page that you are not willing to bring a case against Lightbreather. Would you be willing to collaborate on creating one? I agree with you that her behavior is disruptive and has not changed despite numerous warnings, etc, and I am prepared to begin gathering evidence. I do not interact much with the articles/topics in which she edits and instead see more of what has happened in WP-space. Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't do much otherwise she will get her way, ie: I will be IBANned even for helping you. I've added a few examples that come to mind immediately and may well add a few more as and when. Expect some opposition to that page per: WP:POLEMIC. Canvassing would probably be a fruitful line of enquiry, btw, especially if you include pings and emails to people she seems to perceive to be powerful supporters, eg: GorillaWarfare. (NB: GW has always denied been influenced by any such canvassing, and obviously this cannot be disputed). - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't violate WP:Polemic as it is being used to prepare a case and is intended to be used soon. If I choose not to bring the case within the next week or two, then I'll blank the page. I've already thought of the canvassing angle - thanks for the new links - as I've blocked LB for that before. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs: Sitush is too important for Wikipedia to be lost for these disputes. I would strongly advise him to stay out of it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, We need you. May you come out of all this soon & focus on Happy Editing!. - Ninney (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, I agree that it doesn't violate POLEMIC, but that won't stop LB and others from opposing on the grounds that it does, so you might find it at MfD. And there's a thought: I don't recall contributing to the Kaffeeklatsch MfD but I'd be surprised if there aren't some classic examples of problematic behaviour there.

Others (Kautilya3/Pinney), if an ArbCom case begins it is pretty much inevitable that someone will try to join me to it as a party. I could even name the arbitrator most likely try that, given that I seems to me as if she has already marked my card. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

... and, sure enough, she has. It also wouldn't surprise me if over the next few weeks there is a lot of activity on the (private) systers-wikipedia mailing list regarding this case. No worries: I've got better things to do with my time and there is an element of double jeopardy in naming me this time round. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, think of this as a test of your self-control! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not good at ignoring hypocrisy and things like that and, thinking about it, I doubt that ArbCom gives a stuff about double jeopardy: things seem to get raked over time and again, especially when (as will happen) discredited former admins get involved. BTW, I could also predict another arb whose opinion regarding me is pre-formed. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I only have a vague idea of what happened last time. You were saying you wouldn't go. But then somebody dragged you into it and then things blew up. No point going there again... Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

About Devanga

Hi Sitush,

You are reverting our page again as we have given right sources with correct links pertaining to those sources. We just want to keep our page up to date. Devanga is community that originated from karnataka and now common to all the 4 south indian states and it does not pertain to Andhra Pradesh only.Related ethnic group can be multiple for our community and not only Thogataveera. We want to build our community wiki page with lot of contents and appreciate each and every person to share his content in the common devanga wiki page without reverting our changes.

Thanks, Arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.238.216 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't your community's page. You are adding a lot of unacceptable material, using sources that we simply do not allow here. You are already well beyond our three revert rule. Please read WP:OWN, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:V and WP:RS, then remove all of the non-compliant material. A read of WP:MEAT would not go amiss either, although I do realise that I am throwing a lot of policies at you. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

British Empire

Hi Sitush, I was having trouble in regards to editing this article. I deleted a sentence that wasn't backed by sources yet explained why it should be deleted, nevertheless, there was a consensus conflict in regards to the article and tried to prove my point in the article's talk page and provided sources that are not WP:CIRCULAR that explain why the sentence should be removed but no one seems to have even read the sources [1]. I provided sources as asked even though for anyone who reads history knows the point I was trying to prove. I gave my reasons and sources but somehow no one seems to have read what I posted and dismissed me as s nuisance. I would appreciate your help greatly. (N0n3up (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

You know that I have commented at the article talk page. Best to deal with things there. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I left a message [2]. (N0n3up (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

Stop Edit Warring

Ur Activities in Palli/Vanniyar related articles very biased. i have been following you more than year. Karashima Noboru Clearly Mentioned that Kadavas Belonged to Palli the Modern Day Vanniyar, and also sambuvarayar, I also Provided the Inscription Evidence stating Kadavas and Sambuvarayas as Palli. So Do not Assume and Manipulate History with your Own Opinion. And Your not a Historian on such things you never provided any references or source for your reverts over Palli/Vanniyar related articles Premthanjavur (talk) 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Read Sanskritisation ... and WP:SPA. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide proper reference that Kadavas and Sambuvarayas are not Palli/ Vanniyar. I wont accept your own opinion which is biased. Premthanjavur (talk) 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You rely on Noboru Karashima and on WP:SYNTHESIS. The problem is, Karashima does not say what you want him to say. I've already given an example on the relevant talk page. You are one edit away from being blocked, and given your past history I think it might be a lengthy block. Be careful, please. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned your interactions with the user in an ANI thread I started on User:Eshwar.om. Link. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bengali Kayastha

I think merging the two pages makes sense, given that that the main Kayastha page has a lot of sourced information about Bengali Kayasthas - the current Bengali Kayastha page seems dangling and extraneous by comparison.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melotown (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've tried and failed to do that. It was basically me vs Ekdalian if I remember correctly. It probably needs a formal proposal rather than just a normal talk page discussion, unless Ekdalian has changed their mind in the interval. Either way, it is best dealt with at one or other of the article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Melotown that the main Kayastha article has more sourced information regarding Bengali Kayasthas. Sitush, if aligning the Bengali Kayastha page with the main article is not acceptable to you (you had proposed a merger earlier which I had opposed), then I would support merging the two. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good. That means the pair of you now agree with what I said many months ago. I simply do not see the point of basically duplicating 75% or whatever of an article when one seems to be a just a geographically limited variant of the whole. I still think that one of you needs to formally propose a merger, though. I realise that there are few active contributors to those articles but there may be other people watching the things who have an opinion. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pedantry

As if we don't have enough to do, we need to deal with this pedantry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly odd and I have raised the issue because it potentially affects many other lists. See here. I'm not sure what central discussion forum would be best but I suspect somewhere at Village Pump. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Marathi People

So what's exactly wrong in synthesis. Entire Wikipedia is a kind of synthesis, isn't it? Except for Gyan source, everything else looks fine with my edit. Please explain why did you remove it. Further, the empire actually relied on Marathi people for its armed forces - back then India was not 'one single state'. It was indeed an ethnic Marathi empire. User:Amit20081980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not an ethnic Marathi empire. In fact, it was the very size of the thing and the lack of ability to "control the natives" from the centre that contributed in large part to its downfall. It certainly started out as being mostly Marathi people but that is not where it ended up. Like most large empires, it became a victim of its own success. But this should all be discussed at the article talk where, doubtless, I will be shot down because the resident Marathis are a fearsome bunch, just as are encountered on pages relating to Rajputs. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Chandra Bhan Prasad

Dear Situs, Greetings. This is Chandra Bhan Prasad, and Mr Vipin Sodhi assists me in my Office in IT related stuff. My intro "Fond of English the Dalit Goddess........" is my Official intro and not 'Indian journalist". Please ensure that my official intro goes on the Wiki page, or else, remove my page. Warmly Chandra Bhan Prasad pioneercbp@yahoo.com cbhanp at Twitter.

Vipinsodhi87 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the list of problems here is endless, sorry. Please read WP:COI, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:PUFFERY, WP:SPS ... and the list goes on. The article will not be deleted, nor are you going to be able to turn it into something that suits you: neutral and verifiable are the key things. Please raise any valid concerns at Talk:Chandra Bhan Prasad and, if necessary, they can be escalated to our noticeboard for biographies of living people. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

India related edits

Well, this is the first edit I made to the Ajit Singh of Marwar article. "This would have also meant raising Ajit Singh as a Muslim, a plan that the Rathor family was not keen on." While this does lack an ISBN number, it does give the publisher. I do not recall if I had a physical copy of the book, or was using a version on google books, although I would guess the former. I do not have the book currently, so I can't say if the citations corresponded to the pages right or if they were in error or what.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not sure of the history or locus of dispute (if there is one), but fwiw I checked the Richards book and the current content of the Ajit Singh of Marwar#Early years section does broadly match the source. Abecedare (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There were a lot of discrepancies and the citation style + inconsistencies meant I was unsure whether Richards had written another book of similar title. I left a note on JPL's talk page and for some reason the reply appeared here. You'll see that I've basically rewritten what were the first two or three sections, although they are now merged. It could well be that the discrepancies were introduced after JPL's edits - I can't be bothered working it out because it doesn't really matter now. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

@Abecedare: I presume that you have access to Richards. Can you make sense of the bit at the bottom of p. 254? It says

Ajit Singh, the Rathor prince, had survived to become the acknowledged ruler of Marwar and holder of a 3,500/3,000 rank as a reluctant Mughal amir.

Acknowledged by whom? It seems unlikely that Aurangzeb did. And the rank makes no sense at all, almost as if it is a typo from some Indic script. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't figured out the system yet, but the 3,500/3,000 almost surely refers to the Zat rank in the Mansabdari system that Akbar introduced, which is discussed on pages 143-144 of the book. And that would also explain the "acknowledged" part; see page 21 for some discussion of what being a Rajput mansabdar entailed. Ajit Singh was presumably "ruling" under the same conditions. Richards seems to skip over the events in Ajit Singh's life between 1581 and 1607, so we may need to consult other sources if we wish to nail down the exact timeline, and flesh out the details. Abecedare (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am on the hunt for other sources. It is years since I read Richards and this time round I've merely looked at the two relevant chapters. Perhaps I need to start over! - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, since you have been reading up on the Mughals lately you may be able to mediate the recent disputes at Mughal–Maratha Wars‎. Haven't had time to look into the article content to even determine the central issues, but given the subject area wouldn't be surprised if the article needs a clean-up or even a overhaul. Abecedare (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a long time since I read about the Mughals in any depth. Of late, I've mostly been recalling what was read and doing some basic GSearches. As I've said in a recent comment somewhere down below, if it involves the Marathas then it will be unpleasant stuff.

I might be drifting away from India for a little while. User:Sitush/whitehead has been awaiting completion for ages, and I promised Dr Blofeld that I would gut Stephen Koss's > 1000-page book for an article specifically concerning The Manchester Guardian (as opposed to The Guardian). Nonetheless, I'll add the MMW article to my watchlist now and follow up later. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"I might be drifting away from India for a little while." A good idea as long as it's for a little while. It is a pleasant change to be able to read a book cover-to-cover, and make bulk contributions instead of haggling over a sentence or two. Enjoy the "break". Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I was just glancing through Gordon and realized that the Mughal campaign against tha Marathas links up with the campiagn against Ajit Singh through Prince Akbar, who you'd recall was convinced by the Rajputs to rebel against Aurangzeb. Guess where he ran for asylum, once that didn't turn out so well? Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Help required on Vanniyar lead section

Sitush need your help on Lead section of vanniyar article. I have provided references but I am not sure how to add these in the article lead section. details provided on Talk page. Thanks Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)sangitharani

Thanks for reminding me. I've received some additional information by email in the last few hours also. I will try to work on it over the weekend. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Book review and article and Mexico Wikimania

Could you see this one User_talk:Titodutta#Help_to_write_the_exact_review_of_an_article.? She contacted me on Twitter after facing some problems on Wikipedia. What she wants is— to improve the article, specially the "critical reception" section. She thinks the "critical reception" highlights only 1 bad review. After requesting a few times, she has now made a list of reliable refs. I have looking for a reliable person where I can send this lady to get help. See if you can help this user. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. I may go to Mexico Wikimania this year. More news will follow. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not good on books, Tito. I struggle to tell the difference between a serious review and a PR blurb, and I'd much rather we didn't carry articles for newly-published books precisely so that we could attempt to limit the spamming that goes on. Still, I will try to take a look. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for defending me on my talk page about my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who realises.  — Calvin999 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't defending you as such. I was saying that it is best to just ignore Si Trew and go find something else to do, and I was trying to let Si Trew know that even someone like me, who is also gruff in manner, finds him to be so. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Message

you have one message on my talk page.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle undo

I fear I may have inadvertently undone your edit in a Twinkle rollback. Could you double-check. please? It was not intentional; it's just a busy page. Scr★pIron^IV 05:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be there at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I have been following interesting pages and discussions - you seem to be one of the "good guys" in my humble estimation. No gender-specific statement intended, of course. I am hoping the latest round of drama does not cause you any inconvenience. Scr★pIron^IV 05:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We will see ;) - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Some friendly response once and a while, as an elixir against all the "fanmail" you receive. Best regards,

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ. Meant to reply earlier and forgot. You might gather from the timing of my edits over the last week or more that I'm not sleeping very well at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You are my Go To Guy on all things India!

I have just found Category:India political party shortname templates which contains a whole slew of templates that are far longer in name than the outcome when they are transcluded. I wondered if you have any idea what these might be about? Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea. I've never noticed it before, either as a category or as a transcluded template. Obviously, there are short names (BJP, INC and so on) but quite where those things are being used (especially with "meta" in their path name) is beyond me. Someone at WT:INB might have an idea, or perhaps someone with template expertise.

Did you notice I was playing around with Eastman's Royal Naval Academy the other day? I'd had a source sat here since around the time the pair of us worked on it and only now got round to using the thing. The "to do" list is horrendous :( - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the question of a creator here. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I fear I never noticed your Eastman material. I have been amusing myself at WP:AFC, which is how I found these templates. They seem... bizarre. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:INB Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And they have answered! They seem to be special square balls for a game of croquet from a parallel universe. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very weird stuff. I know that the categorisation of the 2014 Indian election candidates seemed to give much pleasure to those who enjoy obsessively categorising and then recat'ing a few weeks later but the net result has been a complete mess; it wouldn't surprise me if this palaver has the same effect. Categories on Wikipedia are a joke and we probably wouldn't lose that much if we just abandoned the whole thing or, at least, deleted the lot and started again with a proper strategy. I still do not understand why we specifically note, for example, women authors but we do not specifically note authors who are men: it reinforces inequality, which ever way you want to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the women categories are needed because they form a minority in various contexts, and so there is interest in subcategories devoted to men. But they should all be non-diffusing subcategories. I have now opened a discussion at WP:CATP#The male movement to figure out how to stop the contesting male subcategories. Please join me there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have just demonstrated why the entire system is a joke. Non-diffusing categories are completely arbitrary taxonomy, and male novelists (for example) should have equivalence with those of t'other gender. Highlighting one gender reinforces inequality, almost always making them stand out because of their gender rather than their notability. You don't get equality through exercise of inequality. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. I am not going to get drawn into gender politics. And, this issue has nothing to do with gender. I might have for instance British Asian journalists as a non-diffusing subcategory of British journalists. If somebody claims we need a category for British English journalists or some such nonsense in the name of "equality," it is laughable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be laughable to have British English journalists but not laughable to have British Asian journalists? Again, it reinforces the notion that there is some sort of freakishness there. I'm all for equal pay, equal access, equal opportunity etc but putting the emphasis on the difference is not a means to achieve it. It's a branding exercise, in both the livestock and PR sense of the term. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not fighting equality battles here. To have a subcategory "British English journalists" somebody would need to demonstrate why the Englishness of a Britisher is of any interest to a reader of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Or, indeed, why the Asian-ness of someone is of any interest. We're people, people. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There could be a number of reasons why the society cares about British Asianness among its writers. Being diaspora, they could be combining cultural influences. Being minorities, they could be facing discrimination, in which case those that defeated the discrimination would be notable. I don't know. The society makes those decisions. We don't. As a wise man once told me, "We are at least theoretically in a cocooned environment here and we should revel in that space." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that recent data for London showed that there were more non-British than British residents. Of course, the entire debate about what constitutes British-ness is messy, as it is for any ethno-soco-linguistic label. Basically, it's a waste of space and I think the decisions of international sports bodies pretty much verify that it is as much a flag of convenience as anything else. I'd rather we pigeon-holed people based on things they are notable for, not things that the gutter press like to emphasise. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Kunwar Prithvi Singh Chauhan

Hi Sitush
I see you did some edits to Kunwar Prithvi Singh Chauhan. I went there to 'un-thumb' the info box picture, and made a few other copy edits, here, removing un/poorly sourced BLP info, adding maintenanc e templates etc. Some IPs have reverted me like here. Do you think my edits are fair? 220 of ^Borg 15:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Those were quite some edits! 220 of ^Borg 10:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is simply a 19 year old boy fully unknown to the business world and does not fulfil the notability criteria. Tagging for CSD.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 18:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mughal–Maratha Wars

Since you've edited this article, probably you have some content knowledge. There has been a dispute between User:Delibzr and User:Xtremedood on this article and a few other places. One report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Delibzr reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Both warned) and there is another at WP:AE#Xtremedood. Any idea who is more likely to be right? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally I'd plump for Xtremedood. They seem to want to stick with reliable academic sources and to avoid the fluff etc, neither of which were anywhere near top of Delibzr's list of priorities (in fact, pro-Maratha fluff seemed to be their goal). That said, I've not looked at the context and will wander over to the AE discussion now. Knowing my luck, I'll be the one who ends up with a sanction. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just sayin'

Removing impotent content is a service to the encyclopedia IMO.[3] Bishonen | talk 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

I don't know about that. At least impotent content can't, um, fork. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that came and went quickly. (So where is Eddie Waring, anyway?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

XD Cut out the puns, guys, they're waring me down. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

They are spreading. Not quite sure how to square impotent with go forth and multiply :) More seriously, we probably should not make fun: ill-advised though they are, they intend(ed) no harm and they're way better with the English than I am with, say, Hindi. Sitush (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rabari Population in Punjab, Haryana

Please provide refrence indicating that the states of Haryana and Punjab have non-negligible population of Rabaris. ShamusHarper (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my problem. The burden is on the person that adds or deletes, not some passing contributor. I can't be expected to do everything here. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've amended the page. Thanks for cooperating. ShamusHarper (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Playtime Is Over (mixtape) edits

Hey Sitush! You made some edits on the Playtime Is Over (mixtape) page that I reverted, and then you put back. I'm fairly new to editing, and I think I may have misunderstood the changes you made, which is why I undid them -- sorry about that. In particular, I don't quite understand what a mirror is. I did some googling but came up empty. Would you mind explaining that, and how that relates to the edits you made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyrice (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A mirror is a source that copies from Wikipedia, either word-for-word or extremely closely. Obviously, if the source is copying from us (even an old version of an article) then we cannot use it as a citation because we would be citing ourselves. This is called a circular reference. Sometimes material might be in a related article rather than the one that you are editing directly.

You will find mirrors both on websites and, alas, in books. Some companies, such as Emereo and General Books LLC, seem to make their money by printing our articles in book form. They create a compendium of related articles and flog the things. That is what had happened in the case of the article to which you refer. Some known mirrors are listed at WP:MIRROR but there are many more out there and, of course, new ones could appear any day.

Spotting the things can be tricky sometimes because we also have problems with copyright, where contributors copy things from books etc to our articles. They should not, of course (see WP:COPYRIGHT) but it does go on and the entire situation becomes very messy. Basically, we have to hunt through the history of an article to see which came first: us or them.

In the specific case that you mention, even the format of the book's pages looks like the Wikipedia format (font, the infoboxes they use etc) and they actually state what they are doing in the first few pages of the book. They claim to donate some of the proceeds to the Wikimedia Foundation. Whether they do or not is moot and I asked that question of Jimbo Wales a few hours ago. He may not know himself, of course.

Does this help? - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes sense. (Yeah, it's super obvious that Emereo uses Wikipedia content now that I'm looking for it.) And that helps a lot, thanks for explaining all that. I'll definitely avoid those kinds of sources and just be more cautious with citing in general.

I also edited the Playtime Is Over page again and added in a better source for some of the content on the Composition section that was originally sourced with the Emereo book. Hopefully that's more appropriate.

Again, thank you! Soyrice (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it!!

Wikipedia guidelines mentioning use of "local language" in lead of City names. read here] on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities.--Human3015 talk • 04:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that is not the thread I was referring to (I've never even seen that project). It might do the job, though: I'll have a read of it. Thanks for letting me know. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of potential participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather case, the committee has made special arrangements to enable i-banned editors to post and respond evidence about each other. These are as follows:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for the purpose of participating on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea why I've been sent this. I am not a party, I've offered no evidence and I've said nothing on the case talk pages, nor am I under an IBAN relating to Lightbreather. Does someone know something I do not? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• According to the case, Lightbreather is in a 1-way IBAN with you. I think that's why. This case is long since overdue. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I really couldn't care less what LB says about me. I'm sure she will be found wanting. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't stress too much about it, Sitush. I got that message sent to me aswell & there's no iban between myself & Lightbreather :) GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe there is some random name-picking algorithm. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In my situation, It was likely sent to me, so that I wouldn't complain about the participation of i-banned editors -- even though it's irrelevant to me, as to who participates ;) I had opposed the opening of the case, so that's likely another reason why it was sent to me. Oh well, no big deal :) GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see: spreading the net wide. The thing is excruciating to watch - "holes", "digging", and "stop" come to mind. Very sad; somewhat predictable. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I've already revoked my request for merge in the source page, forgot to remove from Reddy page. Fine, thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was just a clean-up job. No worries. There are all sorts of problems with caste-only lists of people, some of which I've listed at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. That particular list is a classic because of Helen Reddy, who is highly unlikely to be a Reddy. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Simon

greetings - perhaps you could update my page some time? (Michael Axworthy) 31.54.90.1 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably not a great idea, Michael, because I know you! I wonder if Dr. Blofeld might be prepared to take it on? We're not a promotional site, so you'll get a fair reading but not a slavish one. You are welcome to leave comments on the talk page of the article (see Talk:Michael Axworthy) but it wouldn't be a great idea to edit the thing yourself. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'm prone to biting newbies... ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

... but you might gain honorary membership of The Cocoa Tree Club, if MA is still involved. (Not one for the article and, thankfully, back in the days before digital photography ruined the concept of "what happens on tour, stays on tour". Happy days indeed.)

Michael, if you ever have the time then you'd probably be pretty useful as a contributor to Iranian articles etc. You've just got to get your head round the arcane policies of this place. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Shakya

FYI, I picked up our previous discussion about Shakya at that article's talk page. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. See you there sometime today. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Rajendra Pareek

Hi Sitush,

I had created the page Rajendra Pareek and I see you have made lot of amends and also reduced the external sources. Well I am just a beginner on Wikipedia and will not contest what you have done but I can certainly tell you that I am related to him and the information provided by me is the first hand information. I also see you have deleted the names of kids and few other changes. You are also seeking citation on his his being second son. All this information is not in public domain. Somebody has to put this in public domain & I did that. Now do you want me blog this info & then you provide that as an external source of info, that is your choice. Also Sikar & Sikar district & Sikar (Rajasthan Assembly constituency) are not exactly same. I also have exact details of Votes he won/lost etc. will that be helpful. Also most of his sources are hindi news/website. will that also be considered here ? I need your unbiased help in putting up this page. Thanking you in advance. I am learning how to use the wiki (so pardon me for my errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekpurohit (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about being new and making mistakes - we all begin as newcomers and we all make mistakes. What I mostly did was copyedit the article and put the external links where they should be - see WP:Citing sources. You probably should not be editing the article at all because of your relationship to the subject - see our attitude to conflicts of interest, and note that it was interesting you didn't mention any of the elections where he lost. Blogging is unlikely to be a solution but Indian MLAs usually have official biographies available on the websites of the legislative assembly to which they were elected - that would do the job nicely.

The votes are available via the links that are already in the article and I think that they are generally rather trivial. I am aware that the three Sikar things are different, thanks.

It's good that you have joined the Wikipedia community and you are welcome to contribute here but, please, don't contribute about things relating to your own family etc. If you must say something on such subjects, it would be best if you do so at the talk page for the relevant article rather than actually edit the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thakur Sitaramdas Omkarnath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thakur_Sitaramdas_Omkarnath

This page was started by Abhishek Bose. Ample external links were given, along with Book refernces, website links, magazine issues. Initially, warning was given that too many links are not recommended. Then, external links were reduced. Now, the warning message wants more 'reliable, secondary sources about the topic'? I am also trying to add information to this page. please guide us what is to be done exactly. Arkaghosh6 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I will try to take a look tomorrow. I remember removing the tag that requested more citations but I didn't remove the notability tag that you mention. I suspect a part of my reason might have been because of some scepticism regarding the "walled gardens" that surround articles related to the Divine Life Society, where sources are often obscure and self-referencing. It might be difficult to explain but, yes, I will take another look and give it a go. Don't panic: we can discuss it all at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Thakur Sitaramdas Omkarnath was a Preacher who influenced devotees from India and abroad. Most of the books written by him and about him are local publications [without ISBN Code]. Thus, 'The Gurus of India' and 'Cloudburst of Thousand Suns' are referred to frequently. can we use blogs and personal webpages as reference? Arkaghosh6 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and personal webpages are not usually considered to be reliable sources. It is the issue of "local hero" documentation that might cause problems regarding notability, especially if they turn out to be basically promotional stuff from his followers. If his influence was as significant as you say then I would expect to be able to find independent sources from around the world, not just from his own region. I will look at it today. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Independent sources like international reviews, pages on other prophets, newspaper refernces have been quoted, as you know. Other references wiil be cited as and when possible. The book 'Gurus of India' was a very famous publication, and it has many descriptions of Sitaram's widespread influence. Your guidance and necessary intervention is solicitted. Arkaghosh6 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for help at the noticeboard of the India project - WT:INB - because I'm fairly sceptical about this type of article. Hopefully, some other people will get involved. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Saw your work on Emereo Publishing and the thread at WP:RSN. It's good to know there are people out there cleaning up problems like that. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

???? Thread at RSN? I didn't see that! Thanks, though. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This and this one. Emereo doesn't just copy content from wikipedia, but sometimes take efforts to hide their copying. A typical example I had quoted in the latter thread: "a quorum of ten or more adult Jews" in Shiva (Judaism) becomes "a minimum number of 10 either further grown up Jews" in the Emereo book, Shiva 362 Success Secrets, which does not even mention wikipedia. Sneaky and incompetent. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare wow, that is not good at all. They claim to donate a portion of the proceeds to the WMF. I suspect they do not or that it is something ridiculous, like a cent per thousand copies sold (if they even sell a thousand). - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll bet a dollar that wikipedia never saw that penny. :) Abecedare (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I'm cleaning up the "success secrets" string now. We need to make a list of the common title strings and periodically run through them. As the RSN thread says, a lot of people don't include the publisher in their citations. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Fanny Schiller

I am working on a translation project with @Dr. Blofeld:. Can you explain why you reverted my edits when it is clear I am working on the file without attempting to talk with me about it? If you have issues with one of the sources, fine, we can discuss it, but to completely discount every source is unreasonable. SusunW (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Emereo and imdb aren't RS and Network website is questionable but the expansion is good. Please restore and then sourcing can be replaced/improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Restore whatever you want when reliable sources are available. I've no idea what Spanish Wikipedia's policies may be but they seem to be very much less strict than ours. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing on Spanish wiki is usually poor, but the content usually accurate. It's important when translating to try to use the best sources to support it. For films there should be hits in google books. I'll leave a note about Emereo on the project talk page as that increasingly seems to be stumping people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I said when we started this I knew nothing about film. I don't. Whether a source is reliable or not, respect for other editors should be paramount. A simple did you know would have resulted in my attempting to find another source. I don't do edit wars and I do not like to be involved in projects where people cannot respect each other. I shall attempt to find the sourcing on Schiller and replace the sourcing on Blanch, but then I am going to go back to my corner of the world where people are polite. SusunW (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It has little to do with being knowledgeable about film or not. For films you should be able to pick up hits in google books to solid sources by googling the title and name of the actor. The content is otherwise fine. I fell for Emereo the other day. It's easily done. I've added a paragraph on the Licensing and sourcing section of the project page for the sources to avoid anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout slap to Blofeld (maybe?) and Sitush for biting a newbie dedicated to learning about wikipedia and sincerely trying to improve the encyclopedia! Unlike some other "new" editors we all know, SusunW is a very good and truly new editor who is working hard to learn how to edit. Let's support people like her! Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If I had known then I might have done things differently but I'm pissed off at the moment myself, courtesy of Sadads and a stupid ArbCom case that should never have gone that far. Also, I assumed that the source was carried over with the translation. Look above a couple of sections re: a mixtape article, or look at my last edit to a user talk page. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout slap to Dr. Blofeld Montanabw??? Excuse me?? I am one of the strongest supporters of Susunw and have thanked her for a great deal of her work. In fact I was the one who started Mexican actresses as a topic specifically for Susun to tackle. I was the one who restored her content and resourced it. It was quite an issue with the sourcing needing fixing. So don't you dare turn up here and treat me as the negative party in this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Sitush or a wiki page stalker here could kindly explain to Montanabw that Emereo publishing and sourcing like "ll Flynn Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Errol Flynn" which she readded are not reliable sources and mirror wikipedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I fear we would be wasting our pixels. I've already explained this in conversations/edit summaries that Montanabw should have looked at before trouting, and the Emereo issue has been mentioned at RSN, here and on your talk page in very recent days. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've done some digging around and it looks like all of this stuff from Montanabw may be an extension of her ongoing stalking and feud with Rationalobserver and Dr Blofeld. I'm commenting out the trout because the underlying motivation seems to be to irk others, with me as collateral damage. I do not want to be a party to it. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The source I restored was in Google books and it looked like a legitimate book. If it was one of those ebooks of wikipedia content, I didn't catch that, so sorry. You guys appeared to be picking on SusunW× and I don't want the toxic nonsense that exists on wikipedia to discourage her and make her quit. She's the kind of editor we need! Simple as that. Sorry that I thought Blofeld was in on the dogpile. As for "stalking and feuding" with Rationalobserver, well, she's the opposite sort of editor. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I fell for it originally!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can find all sorts of rubbish on the internet, as you should well know. What do you mean "if it was one of those ebooks" (my emphasis)? Didn't you read the conversation above before jumping in? Didn't you recognise the formatting of the book? You are so far off track here, Montanabw, that I'm astonished: I know you're a damn good contributor but you've been slinging round baseless accusations based on a belief that we were "picking on" someone and presumably hadn't even checked our contributions relating to that person: Blofeld has been aiding them for ages, while I was on a clean-up of the crap that you subsequently reinstated (and for which someone above barnstarred me a couple of days ago). I couldn't care less whether it was SusunW, Jimbo, Mattisse, you or whoever that added it to whatever article - it had to go. Anyway, you've apologised for all that now, so best to draw a line under it.

As for Rationalobserver, well, that's your business but don't bring it here. I didn't care much for RO when our paths crossed but I wouldn't use other situations or people as a weapon in a campaign against them, nor would I stalk them to the extent that you seem to be doing. It is almost as if you are trying to find fault with what they do, trying to provoke them into doing something stupid and trying to have a go at Blofeld just because he was involved in the process that led to them being unblocked. Even asking someone publicly to "quietly" check for copyvio looks like needling. It doesn't become you. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And this is exactly why the dramaover at ArbCom needs to stop, and why certain parties need to lose their editing privileges. I don't actually know any of you, and I haven't had the pleasure of working with you (yet) - but since I have been here, I have tried to fathom the politics of this place. If I were to be associated with a group of editors, I would choose each of you. All contributors, who care about the content of the articles, and don't seek out the nonsense. Even so, the garbage dumped into the drama boards spills over into individual emotions, builds frustrations, and makes decent people lose their focus. We make mistakes. So, as a stranger with good intentions, I want to offer all a word of encouragement, pour you each the libation of your choice, and let you know that you are doing good stuff. I hope SusunW will forgive the mistakes that come along with being real human beings, all of us under presure from somewhere. CHEERS! Scr★pIron^IV 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Noted. A lie down in a dark room for me. Perhaps even one with padding on every surface. It has been a mad 24 hours or so of experienced people (including me) ripping into each other. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We're all here for the reason, well most of us. Anybody who produces half decent content should generally be supported unless at least half of what they do is trolling or belligerent. Nobody is perfect. Those who don't contribute content and spend all of their time on here speaking on talk pages or drama boards, they're the real wastes of space on here who should leave if they have nothing positive to say or contribute. And I'm sure we can all think of some names who fit that bill down to a tee.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, a K at least. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I could move down even a couple more letters ... But like Blofeld said, time to draw a line under it. My frustration with that one type of editor had me in WP:NAM mode when I thought someone else was being picked on and I had a bit of tunnel vision. But please don't cast aspersions that I'm after people who appear to ally with someone - I don't have the time and wiki doesn't have the bandwidth... we've all been in the situation where an editor may be solid on one thing and banned for life due to another. I'm a known associate of several missed users and at least one banned user as well as known to defend good-but-sometimes-in-trouble folks like Eric Corbett or Gerda, so trust me, I'm focused more on behavior than personalities, even if it doesn't always seem that way. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing References

Rajiv_Malhotra article is ripe with self referencing to sell books. Know you will love this one...

Thereandnot (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agarwals

It source is http://www.agarwalsamajtirupur.in/history.php. I being naive don't know much about wikipadia. The facts are 100% correct as I myself being agarwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.146.136 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that we do not use sources affiliated with castes. They are far too prone to puffery - Sanskritisation is a classic issue. For information regarding sourcing on Wikipedia please see WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

talks, Many thanks

Hi sitush please talk on talks page many thanks. I have added the idian census as of 2001 to give credable population figures many thanks, Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith012 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The article has been on my watchlist for a while and I will take another look at it later. I don't think adding back that census is going to make any difference because you are misunderstanding the fundamentals ... but I will check. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Raab

Hi Sitush, I noticed you removed VRML 93 from the article on Andreas Raab becuase the publisher is not reliable. I'll note that the book is still for sale at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and is even available as a Kindle edition. Even if Emero is not a reliable publisher does it make sense to fault the author that uses them to publish? Shouldn't the author, inclusion in and current sales of the book count more then the publisher? Itsmeront (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would note that the author also publishes with other publishers: [Jack McLaughlin] Itsmeront (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Itsmeront:, see the section above, and links therein, for an explanation. In this case the relevant book content was an unacknowledged cut-and-pate of wikipedia's Mark P. McCahill article. And it is quite possible that "Jack McLaughlin" is just a made up entity, not that it would matter in any case. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it :) Sitush (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation. That is very helpful. I agree with removing that reference. Itsmeront (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you reviewed the article but didn't vote on the AfD. Maybe if you have a chance you could review it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just doing a clean-up of poor referencing. I only scanned the article for context etc and didn't bother looking at the AfD. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Schools in Mumbai

Hey, Just saw your tireless work on the page "List of Schools In Mumbai". It takes real courage and determination to convert all links into citations. EVen though you used ReFill, still.

However, I feel that Links would do the community better since Wikipedia cannot accommodate (and is not supposed/meant to) all the important information about every school. Additionally not every on-editor knows how to follow links from the Cites. ( They would find it easier to click the text in the article )

So just wanted to give you a heads up that based on the article-response, we may have to revert to the linked list again. Ill take care of the bare-links. ( Truly hats off for that! )

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hats off to you for converting all bare-links to Embedded links on List of Schools In Mumbai. thank you for your contribution to WikiProject India and Wikiproject India - Education Anonymousbananas (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not do barelinks because of linkrot. Please do not revert. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitush (talk · contribs) Would prefer if you could tag the user whose comment youre replying to or to leave a message on His talk page since it is tedious/difficult to keep checking your talk page again. I reverted since i thought you havent reverted to my comment. I understand Linkrot, but barelinks are better than no links at all to a topic/list item. Anonymousbananas (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anonymousbananas, the links are there, via the citation. That is how we do things on Wikipedia and it is not negotiable. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitush (talk · contribs) Whoa there fellow Wikipedian. nice to see that you tagged me this time (Please consider doing that everytime now). My major concern was that you didnt tag me and not that you reverted the edit. Lets try to keep things civil around here. Phrases like "It is not negotiable" are not good ways to get your point across and play well with me.

All I meant to say is, Wikipedia is for the mass public, if we're gonna keep the links, might as well keep em in-text rather than citations because in-text links are user-friendly, unless youre planning to turn Wikipedia into a school database.

Also, are you a native India, because if you'r enot that would strip you of a major chunk of having a say in this because Native Indians can contribute with more local relevance. Anonymousbananas (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not from India but that makes no difference. The fact is, we are an encyclopedia and we use citations - really, it isn't up for discussion and no offence was intended. You will struggle to find anyone with experience here who accepts embedded links in preference to citations. Please note also that I've raised an additional issue on the list talk page regarding the citations that we do have. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anonymousbananas, please be aware that the "ping" notification system does not always work. If you are engaged in a discussion it is usually better to add the relevant page to your watchlist, at least for the duration of the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitush (talk · contribs) Im happy we could sort this out in a friendly manner. Cheers.

List of Schools in Mumbai

Uhm, bro, i was kinda working on the edit you just reverted? Whats up? I was tabling the entire content.

Why are you reverting edits in such a manner Sitush (talk · contribs)? Anonymousbananas (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to wait for consensus. I've asked for input at WT:INB and you are aware that there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page. In addition, there are far more problematic issues regarding that list than just reformatting the thing. I'm trying to sort some of those out but it involves jumping around numerous extremely poor articles. You could help with that. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Sitush (talk · contribs) , tell me what to do Anonymousbananas (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I don't think I've ever seen a list with so many redlinks before. What's it for, exactly? I thought the idea of Wikipedia lists was to bring together things that had Wikipedia articles? Plus possibly a small number of redlinks for articles that somebody, such as the lister, is about to create. That can hardly be the case here. As a separate issue, Anonymousbananas, your rudeness on the talkpage is breathtaking, for instance here. Are you sure you want an admin to intervene? Bishonen | talk 10:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

• Bish, it is a complete nightmare. Just for the top level, I've recently started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Schools_in_India_-_overview. That's without getting involved with the obvious linkspam and NLIST issues. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen (talk · contribs) both sitush and me got into a slightly heated discussion. My Apologies. Tell me this, why cant we remove the red links, but let the list item stay? This is what is being followed in other School List Pages. Tell me if am wrong here. Also, they are also listing Primary Schools. And if you look through other pages, not all the schools listed have Wiki articles, neither are they referenced nor cited. Unless you're suggesting a global page-trotting and snipping those lists into half, please tell me how am I wrong. (no sarcasm)

I repeat, I've never seen a list with so many redlinks, and so few blue links. It's ridiculous. There are other lists with redlinks, yes. Compare also WP:Other stuff exists. As for "both Sitush and you", I really don't see any corresponding heat from him. Who are you apologising to, me? Bishonen | talk 11:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

Its more like a general apology. I understand your concern, Bishonen (talk · contribs). So are you saying that those list items arent notable enough to be included at all, or they should just be stripped of the link and let be as text? Anonymousbananas (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Schools in India

Hey Sitush (talk · contribs) So lets admit we've had a bit of a rocky time recently, but lets also admit we both would want to see this Schools in India sphere of Wikipedia cleaned and tidied up. I see you're working effortlessly and tirelessly, so uptil the point consensus builds on the overall structure, lets jot down some to-do points which we can take care of right away and split em up?

Also as a general trivia question, how long does it usually take for consensus to build in such discussions?

Ive also left a word on the noticeboard discussion, let me know what you think. Anonymousbananas (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You've created a rocky situation, yes, and I'm a bit taken aback that Upsana turned up as they did. I'm trying to keep my cool but if it carries on then I'll probably snap eventually. I'm not a bot. Bombarding me with messages every couple of minutes doesn't help, by the way.

Treatment of schools in India is a seriously big problem and nothing is going to get fixed quickly. Getting consensus even for the top-level things that I've recently raised at WT:INB may take a while - weeks, perhaps, but hopefully a few days. I am working through the Maharashtra issues just so I can provide a set of examples for that discussion. I may well be reverted but I've been around long enough that people will hopefully give my some slack with my boldness.

I can't tell you what to do. When it gets to big (as in multi-article) and often contentious issues such as this one, it might be a baptism of fire and could completely put you off contributing further. I'll give you a hint, though: I suspect that some of the redlinks at List of schools in Mumbai might actually have articles - I have already found some and fixed the links but I'd be surprised if there are not more. And in each article there that has a blue link, a "See also" entry needs to exist that goes to the list article. That goes just above the References section, eg: see Ajmera Global School, which also shows some categories that might not exist in other articles. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider this as aformal apology for the confusion I may have caused. Your responses are well noted. I keep looking around to see what I can do. Is sorting out categories a good idea? I'd say it helps but some help in the main Article space would be better than in categories right ? Anonymousbananas (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Anonymousbananas, this is the third section on this page you've created for the same issue within just a couple of days. It's not common practice to have more than one, unless there's a wide timespan separating them, and it makes it harder for people to find the relevant conversations. Please don't create any more sections. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen (talk · contribs) got it.

YGM

Best, Voceditenore (talk)

@Voceditenore: can you resend it, please? I cannot find the thing anywhere but I've had a lot of problems with spam this last week or so, courtesy of an idiot customer trying to use my address as a drop box. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, just now. Voceditenore (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Viability of FILMIBEAT.COM as a WP:BLP source

Hello Sitush. I hope that you are doing well. I recently posted to WP:RS/N regarding the viability of FILMIBEAT.COM as a source for biographical articles and wanted to request your input. Please see filmibeat.com a reliable source for WP:BLP articles? at your convenience should you wish to comment. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap

Since you know a lot about Indian history, there seems to be that they are a lot of issues even I can not fix but I researched a little bit but would you please fully check Maharana Pratap for any issues. Thank you, Gameroffun (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph Crook

The article Joseph Crook has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TeaLover1996 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: what the heck are you doing? The article concerns a 19th-century British member of parliament, as was clear at the point when you prodded the thing? - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Category deletion John Hick (MP)

Hi there, I scanned through Wikipedia:Overcategorization - please point me to the relevant part of the rule in this case? I can add the citations re Hick's art collecting if that is what you are missing? RegardsRstory (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, for example, you had him in:

• Category:Collectors
• Category:Art collectors
• Category:English art collectors
• Category:British art collectors
• Category:British collectors

Since Category:English art collectors is a subcategory of all the others, there is no need for all the others. He's an English art collector, which means he is a British art collector, which means he is an art collector, which means he is a collector. So, if he is in the first of those there is no need to mention the obvious. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, but some might say English is not the same as British, for example 'nationality versus ethnicity' -

some engineers are described as English others are described as British?Rstory (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I really wouldn't get involved in the nationality vs ethnicity thing with categories. I've been here a good few years now and have amassed a shed-load of contributions but I still don't like to get involved with the folks who obsess about categories, and certainly the pedantry that usually comes from that particular aspect is just a drain on my time and enthusiasm. Let them pick over it in their little corner of the project when it suits them and everyone else can just get on with doing something that is as likely as not correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, having studied this issue in some depth recently, I can point out that, as per WP:CAT/EGRS, ethnicity can be an additional categorisation in addition to the primary categorisation, but it should not supplant it. (This is called "non-diffusing" subcategory.) So, Category:British art collectors should be present, even though one might think Category:English art collectors already subsumes that. Diffusing on the EGRS categories causes problems. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And there we go, you see. A pedant turns up <g> This non-diffusing lark is a complete joke, as I've said before, but there is no point in arguing with people who make up rules to suit themselves and baffle everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge journals online

Do you have access to Cambridge journals online? If so I'd be interested in looking at The Scottish Kayaks and the ‘Finn-men’ Richerman (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had but it is not working - says I am not registered! Fortunately for the undergrads, I think they've all sat their exams now. NQ can often rustle up stuff like this and they have my email address, so I could pass it on to you if they can get it. Meanwhile, I'll have a word with the techies. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Good man. If you don't get it someone else who has access may see this - otherwise I'll ask on Eric's page. Richerman (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Check your email. All this modern technology saves me a delivery trip to the pub. I knew there was something objectionable about it. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - I owe you a pint (or two). Can't let technology get in the way of an excuse for a trip to the pub. Richerman (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

World Union for Protection of Life

The Austrian branch is dissolved. --House1630 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I've never heard of the thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it, sorry. You cannot use the Emereo book as a source and a lot of the other changes were completely unsourced, including the claim that the Austrian branch is dissolved. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MIRROR. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocked

I've blocked the new account at Talk:Rajput as well. At first I thought I'd assume good faith, that it was as it might be a friend, but nooo... I'll save that for a better cause. Now we wait four days for the sleepers to show up, I suppose. I'm probably violating WP:BEANS by saying that, but what the heck, that character has been around the block and then some. He knows all about it. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

I noticed. The socks have been hitting that article for years, so a few days will make little difference to them. That's why after I initially ignored, and then reverted and ignored, I decided that in the absence of a block it might be better just to address the point (which was uselss anyway) and then hat things. Rajputs are particularly vain, as is attested in many sources, and I'm afraid we tend to see among the worst examples. I'm surprised that they have left the James Tod article alone since my demolition of him but doubtless they'll return to that in due course because he is the prime example of a facilitator of vanity masquerading as a serious study. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Article : Malik_Jat_clan

Please go through the article Malik_Jat_clan, by contents it simply seems to be copied from an article from promotional site, even the infobox is simply a copy of the article Kadiyan. I am unable to decide the further course of action.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AE discussion

Sitush, you're a person who sees value in User:Darkness Shines' work and you've commented in the current thread at WP:AE#Darkness Shines. But it looks to me that the various attempts to limit him with restrictions so he can do good work without getting into trouble are all failing. As an example, why not check out what he's done since BASC lifted his ban in late March. He was given special permission to work on Female infanticide in India, but his edits there led to a downward spiral and an edit war. That's the article he was proposing to take to GA. Arbcom thought they would give him one more chance and a special list of unblock conditions. If we go by the literal text of the conditions, he has violated them. Can you see any way to resolve the dispute at Female infanticide in India? Read the entire talk page at Talk:Female infanticide in India if you think this is all due to pestering by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. (The GA review at Talk:Female infanticide in India/GA1 is also worth a look, though it may be clouded somewhat by the dispute with FPAS). Should we restore DS's ban from that article, and hope he'll be able to do good work somewhere else? If you or I were arguing whether the baby-thrown-in-the-Ganges image was well enough attested, we'd probably just set it aside and move on. It seems that DS can't do that. It looks like he is running out of places to actually do good work without shooting himself in the foot. I am hoping you will reflect on Female infanticide as an instructive example, because if nobody can see a way forward there, it's unclear how DS can be rescued for productive work anywhere. The topics he likes are usually controversial. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to be personalised: DS reacts when FPAS says anything. A lot of what FPAS says, especially on the GA page, is pedantic grammatical stuff and while they may have a point I can see why it might appear to be needling. FPAS is there because DS is there, and that is a pattern. Then things spiral very quickly.

Specifically, I agree with you regarding the image. I would have given up arguing about it because it is pretty trivial but, again, FPAS is right in the middle of things, and they were as much warring over the triviality as DS. What that article needed was more eyes but less FPAS: as soon as FPAS gets involved, DS kicks back against them and anyone who supports them. Had I known about it at the time then I would probably have stepped in, and among the things I would have said was "forget about the image, it's not worth the aggravation". They might have listened to me, not because we get along (our paths do not cross very often) but because I am not FPAS (and not Robert McClenon either, who is viewed with very jaundiced eyes by a lot of experienced content creators, me included).

I noticed that some of the dispute centred on people other that DS, eg: DS says nothing in this section. I also notice that DS had no problem with the GA reviewer's comments until FPAS stepped in.

Ask FPAS to stay away, reset the clock regarding behaviour, point DS to RfC rather than DRN (DRN rarely works for India-related stuff: too many well-meaning but clueless people trying to mediate topics that take years to understand), and ping someone like me or RegentsPark if things seem to be spiralling. The point is, for all their faults, DS tackles stuff that needs to be tackled, where articles usually are already POV messes and/or glossed-over treatments, as is most Indic stuff. That is bound to cause drama but no-one else is willing to do it: people like FPAS only turn up as a reaction.

All this said, DS is going to be sitebanned at some point because they've not got the Teflon coating that some others have and they've working on Indo-Pakistan subjects that everyone despairs of. I can see why putting everyone out of their misery right now might seem attractive but I just don't like the idea that it was brought about because of very obvious stalking. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that SamanthaBooth makes some good points regarding neutrality and sometimes it seems possible the article might be slipping into synthesis. While it would have been better if said by someone other than FPAS, the general flow of the thing is also clunky and not, in my opinion, GA standard prose even if the research were ok. Those are issues that can be addressed. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'very obvious stalking' seems over the top. People can agree that Future Perfect and DS are having bad interactions, but the points raised by FP are genuine content points that somebody would have to address. If Future Perfect weren't there, surely there would be someone else that DS would come into conflict with whenever there was a serious disagreement about content. If Female infanticide in India is too stressful for DS to deal with, where else do you see him able to successfully contribute? In fact, have you and he worked on anything together that came out well? This time I'm serious and willing to listen to any favorable examples. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think he is stalking, sorry. I don't actually know why because I've got nothing but respect for FPaS generally and, indeed, they've just nailed something for me at the Helpdesk today.

I don't think the infanticide article is too stressful for DS to deal with (I'm ripping into it at the moment) but I do think that wherever DS goes, if FPaS turns up then it will deteriorate. I was surprised to see that nothing had happened at the infanticide article from 13 May, despite all of the problems that were being presented. I've no idea what DS can do to get out of this hole and, as I said, it seems inevitable that sooner or later they are going to be sitebanned. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Sitush. I mentioned the aptness of the banner at the top of this page with respect to yet another lame brouhaha at ANI [4]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On a similar topic, said banner also has permanent residence here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, setting aside all the good sourcing stuff that the pair of you have done to the article in question, if PaulB comes after me with arguments such as those used in the ANI thread, I'll put him in his place. That is the sort of nonsense I do not like and anyone who follows me around will know that I gut a lot of articles:. If he wants to be slavish to WP:PRESERVE then he might as well set up his own project and call it Wikifiction. We're an encyclopaedia, folks, not a repository for every statement ever dreamt up: common-sense should apply in both directions. By the looks of it, and some brief past encounters, he wouldn't last 10 minutes in the sphere of caste articles etc.

As for the tag, I make no claim to originality. It has been doing the rounds for a while now, although I cannot recall who originated it (will be in the template history). - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there some point to this rant? I didn't write WP:PRESERVE, nor WP:UNSOURCED. I do object very strongly to editors who gut articles for no reason others than to assert power. It's a form of "macho editing" that I find quite obnoxious. Talk of putting people "in their place" has similar distasteful overtones. You should remove content that you have reason to believe to be false. A lot of cited content is false, especially on obscure articles in which it is often the case that sentences have been rewritten leaving an old citation, or poor references are used, but because of the obscurity of the subject it's not obvious that this is the case. We must always be aware of the basic fact that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the reason for the rant. You talk twaddle and selectively wikilawyer, eg: you have been referred to WP:BURDEN before but only ever seem to mention PRESERVE in situations such as this. I've no time for lawyers but, yes, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not a repository of statements with no support. It is easy to add them back, if you find a source, but the damage from leaving possibly false information in there, for example, is incalculable. If you can't source it, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What an extraordinary post. I selectively "wikilawyer"? I've been here for years and no one has ever accused me of that. You appear to be in a world of your own. I may have previously referred to "preserve" on very few occasions, presumably one of which got your goat once for some reason. You do know that the article under discussion is an inoffensive one about a Scottish village, the content of which is actually disputed by no-one? It's not about how some Indian caste was supposedly responsible for discovering the wheel and a had string of glorious military victories; and anyone who says otherwise is a racist. I am very familiar with such articles and their editors. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You really do not get it, do you? Of course I know the subject of the article - that is an even more basic element than WP:BEFORE. The subject matter, however, is irrelevant. You've not got your way in article discussions involving me for the same reason, and nothing is likely to change because you seem still not to understand. What you should have attempted to do is that which Voceditenore and Ritchie333 did, not just burble some cherrypicked policy that you well know has an oft-cited opposite. If you want to keep something, source it; otherwise, take the chance that it will be removed.

Someone recently said that I am adept at using TNT on articles. They're right, and they did not mean it nastily. Retaining unsourced statement is a very slippery slope and we've got enough problems with the wider world taking pot-shots regarding our unreliability etc without encouraging it amongst ourselves. I must remove tens of thousands of characters every month here and I'm not fussed about doing so because all we have lost is uncertainty that can be rectified if ever it can be sourced. Uncertainty about something that is not sourced can persist for ever if we adopt your approach. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What's to get? My approach exists entirely in your imagination. I've deleted tons of stuff. The only article discussion involving you that I can remember was Dasa, in which you stopped responding having demonstrated remarkable ignorance of both who Parpola is and the fact that Renfrew was his opponent. If you think you "got your way", I'd love to know how. You seem to have a great capacity for rewriting history. I know of no other "article discussion" in which I've even interacted with you that I can recall, or any in which I invoked PRESERVE. As for what I did, I responded to a query in ANI. The policy was not cherrypicked. It was the one that was most relevant to the query that was asked. I have many times gone to actual articles to help improve them, and do so every day. Your blustering does no good to anything or anyone. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, as you can see, several very experienced editors agree with my comments at ANI. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, I believe you may be mixing Paul Barlow with somebody else (or possibly relying on some isolated experience/comments). I have edited with and seen both of your editing for several years, and both of you are in the "remove junk information; use solid sources" camp. The discussion above seems to have simply polarized the rhetoric to the point that it does not really represent what either of you (or I, for that matter) do in practice. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, in which case I apologise. On my phone away from home excuse any types

I've reverted you at Eric's page.

I've reverted you at Eric's page. It just seemed to be a very weird comment: didn't make a lot of sense, came from someone who hasn't been editing much and almost certainly isn't known to Eric, and who professes an interest in the gender stuff that is at the heart of recent problems.--ChristopheT (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice

What do you think about this newish article?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: sorry, I saw this yesterday when on my phone and forgot to respond when I got to a keyboard that is actually worth using. The article will go nowhere: it is destined forever to be an unreferenced stub and a source of disruption. The best that could be hoped for is that it redirects to List of people called Sethi but that would potentially be a violation of WP:BLP because there is no certainty that people on that list would in fact be Sikhs, let alone members of the Sethi gotra. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Turns out it was a cut and paste of this article by the same user, constituting both copyright and OR violations. The editor has already been given a discretionary sanctions warning, so we'll see how it goes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please

Do whatever you believe is right in your heart of hearts, my friend, but please be careful about drawing in someone previously uninvolved, who has been a dedicated and kind and helpful content creator for many years. Attacking her for a single comment to get at the other editor would be highly unfortunate and inadvisable. Please do not go there. Thank you for considering my words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You do follow that mailing list, don't you? She does, and she comments there so should be aware of the situation. However, the person you are referring to is not the centre of attention in the discussion that you are referring to and I have no problem with her. The centre of attention is Callanecc, and it really wouldn't surprise me if Callenecc did what they did because of another "run to mommy" exercise - can't prove it, of course, but I'm pretty familiar with how the system is being abused. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not read any mailing lists or participate at IRC. I never have. I am Facebook friends with a few Wikipedia editors but do not discuss Wikipedia controversies there. I keep emails to a bare minimum. I try to be as open as possible, all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you do not read it then you are not really in a good position to judge what goes on there or how it works, I'm afraid. Reading is of course not the same as participating: they wouldn't allow me to post there if I tried and have bullied or moderated various other reasonable people off in the past (ErrantX being the example that you will know of). There is now a completely private mailing list also, which is worrying from a meatpuppetry point of view, especially given the echo chamber nature that ErrantX noted.

I've never got the hang of IRC and do not use either TwitFace or Bookter. There are some emails, often to do with tracking down sources or just venting about the craziness of this place. No canvassing etc, although there have been at least three instances where, for reasons of outing/oversight/legal, I've had to deal with things behind the scenes - one instance is the long-running India Against Corruption thing, which WMF will only deal with off-wiki for what should be obvious reasons. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand the need for private communication regarding the IAC matter and am very sympathetic about the harassment you have received. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:

And what relevance is this to anything here, Tutelary? I'm very much a proponent of software solutions to common issues on Wikipedia. I have a large amount of items on my watchlist, and I generally don't look back to the day beforehand even if I skip a day due to real life stress or other real life factors. As a result, I can sometimes miss the 'X administrator blocked Y person' on my watchlist. With that userscript, however, their user page and talk page and their username where they've signed is greyed out and crossed out because they are blocked. It is useful for that purpose. Have you ever been in that particular situation? If not, sorry for it being of little relevance to you. I also meant absolutely no ill will by posting it on Eric's talk page. If you need further clarification or explanation, please ask. Tutelary (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but why is it so important to know who has been blocked, and why do you need to tell Eric that you have him marked as blocked - if it does indeed do that for temporary blocks? Can't you see that it would be insulting to tell someone they have been more or less erased from Wikipedia, even temporarily? Richerman (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see--after explanation why it could be deemed as insulting. It was taken in the context of Eric being 'blocked' and 'marked' as blocked as if some sort of shame marker. That was not the intended context. The intended context was to offer the ability to see whether someone has been blocked or not without seeing the 'X administrator has blocked Y person' (which can be missed). This is a mistake of mine and I will remain out of the matter further. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Tutelary (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Any image clean-up experts out there?

Hey stalkers, do any of you know of someone who could clean up the image here for use at Hulme Hall, Hulme? There is some quite severe bleeding from the scanning process. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go - NQ (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, lateral thinking. I'm impressed! Thanks very much - now uploaded and in the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanniyar trying to do create false history

Sitush need your help. Vanniyar is trying to create a false history. Many articles seem to be their caste propaganda and false history. Kindly monitor these article and guide me further. I have made edits. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Kadava dynasty ‎ Malayamān Chozhanar Udayarpalayam ‎ Mazhavaraayas Vanniyar ‎

most of these articles have references which are not verifiable or mention something else. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

It has been going on for a long time. I have recently managed to get hold of a source that should help to resolve a lot of the issues but I've only quickly read the thing and need to digest it properly.

If you see something that is supposedly in a source but in fact is not then I suggest you remove the citation and add {{cn}} for now. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I need to answer this. The above mentioned topics by Sangitha rani111 are well sourced by well known authors and hitorians (ex: Karashima Noboru, McGilvray, Burton Stein) none of them Stated that present day Vanniyars are differ from early days Vanniyars or Pallis. Instead they accepted that Pallis and Vanniyars are modern day Vanniyars. If you People have any proofs/ source that states those Vanniyars are differ from Pallis please provide them before editing them with Biased intentions. Premthanjavur (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We have been here before. Unless you begin to demonstrate an understanding of WP:NPOV and less of a shoot-from-the-hip style of editing, I'm afraid you are going to find yourself blocked again at some point in the future. Worse, given this from Philg88, it might be an indefinite block. You can't just keep misrepresenting sources and ignoring what other contributors think. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush I have made the following additions in vanniyar article "the Vanniyar filed a claim in Pondicherry to prove they were not a low caste as traditionally considered"

https://books.google.com/books?id=tDN0MinxMigC&pg=PA445&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXZqVamIEIzXoASa64DYDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20low%20caste&f=false

Rise of the Plebeians?: The Changing Face of the Indian Legislative Assemblies

edited by Christophe Jaffrelot

https://books.google.com/books?id=GZwD7EqLcAUC&pg=PA24&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXZqVamIEIzXoASa64DYDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20low%20caste&f=false

Rural Society in Southeast India

By Kathleen Gough ( cambdridge university ).

Please add these references. I am still learning how to make references in article. Thanks Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Burton Stein himself considers the vanniyars as low peasant caste.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Fxqtx8SflEsC&pg=PA19&dq=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fm9uVeicG8epogTxzYPABg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20caste%20burton%20stein&f=false

Please read bottom of page 19 Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=xjoeAAAAIAAJ&q=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&dq=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fm9uVeicG8epogTxzYPABg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg THE INDIAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY REVIEW by Burton Stein

Kindly add this reference for "the Vanniyar filed a claim in Pondicherry to prove they were not a low caste as traditionally considered" Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I gone through the links you provided, all of them are not clear and not supporting your Opinion. they are mentioning that pallis or vanniyas were laborers and agriculturalists. It does mean that they are low caste. And one of your link compares Vanniyars with Brahmins, which doesn't make sense.

And I Want this discussion over Talk:Vanniyar, not here Premthanjavur (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh ... It seems that you still not listening Premthanjavur. If you don't start playing by the rules very quickly, your next block will be for a week or longer.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cedric?

Sitush!!

	Cedric!
	Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as an explanation- the dog's name is Cedric. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The dog probably has more life in it than I do, and the name makes a change from Fido. What is that thing? A miniature schnauzer? - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thing? How dare you! Yes. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We had one of those for a while. We returned it after a year, cause of excessive peeing in all the wrong places and a blatant refusal to learn. There's a professorial metaphor in there somewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Shocked

Did you see this? I'm genuinely shocked. No way I would have imagined that so many of the users I had been interacting with all over India/Hinduism pages, esp. User:Bladesmulti, were all socks of User:AmritasyaPutra. @RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3: did any of you have prior suspicions of sockpuppetry (not just some POV editing)? Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing here. I was also shocked, especially with Bladesmulti. The "master" is OccultZone and this entire mess has been part of an arb case. Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone is the most prolific, while AmritasyaPutra is the oldest. Given that the latter had been editing since 2008, it is almost certain there were/are other socks who were not caught by CU because they were inactive in recent months. We should keep an eye out for newly resurrected accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At least the following discussion can be closed now. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled - NQ (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That was overdue for a closure anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dismaying. OccultZone isn't the oldest, but the case was given his name due to the Arb case. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Never suspected. If they were all the same individual then I must say it was very artful socking, especially with Blades and Amritasya taking turns on JJ's mentoring. Perhaps they are room mates using the same IP address? Even that would be pretty amazing! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly surprised. I've long had suspicions about OZ, Blades and Amritasya - they've been backing each other up in somewhat peculiar circumstances over the months. But, as you know, unless I put the legwork into investigating I'm not really supposed to say it ... and I often can't be bothered putting that effort in and so bringing a shed load more problems in my direction. It isn't helped that nowadays I tend to forget more than I remember: my solitary brain cell, which answers to Cedric, is full. I wouldn't have connected the others named in the case; in fact, I think I may only have had significant dealings with one of them (Delibzr).

We know that we get a lot of socking and meatpuppetry in India stuff and we know that some of them are pretty clever. This isn't the biggest sockfarm ever, nor did it necessarily do a massive amount of damage. I think that admin who got caught out for COI stuff re: the Indian college was probably a far worse case. There will be others out there. In fact, I could name one right now that has looked odd for ages but I can't make my mind up whether they have had some Damascene moment, the account has been compromised, they are sharing it with someone else, or they are socking. At one time I thought they might well have been a sock of the long-gone MangoWong but I never did do the work.

(edit conflict) I didn't know anything about mentorship: JJ = JoshuaJonathan? What brought that about? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this makes sense now. I did wonder why someone whom I had never really heard of turned up and did that. Not that I had a problem with them doing so. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL!!! Yes, before I'm going to read any further: I've stated right in the beginning that I suspected Blades to be a sock. And OccultZone has also been mentioned more than a year ago already in connection to Blades. And I noticed, when Blades proposed some of my stuff to be deleted, that OccultZone joined-in right-away, which really surprised and annoyed me. I've also written oce - or did I just think that? - "Blades, if you're ever going to be blocked, don't come back as a sockpuppet." I've also wondered why Blades was so interested in sockpuppets. So, I'm going to read further now. Did I really read "OccultZone" here? By the way, I've had three menties; the third one was a sock. Blades too? Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Delibrz! He too? Or do I have to read further? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This started the mentorship for Blades. At SPI, there is some case in which Blades and OccultZone were connected, if I remember correct. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord, in the few months that I've been away the sock drawers have gotten more complex! I think Blades was a no-brainer early on with the sort of "needling" and "teacher's pet" sort of posts he did at different places; I've never come across the others (or never noticed them), so I guess I never figured out who it was. But again, AGF has been taken to such extremes now that regular and good content contributors don't get the benefit of it, it's only used to protect trouble makers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Spiffy. I notice Callanecc was the person who turned down the CU request at the original Blades/OZ SPI. Not slow to (over-)react more recently, though. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice something else again: OC's English is much better than Blades. Is this one person? Or two? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Along the same lines, one thing odd I had observed about Blades: sometimes their posts were in barely understandable English, while at other times their English was highly fluent and idiomatic. Wonder if teher are more than one person behind these accounts... Abecedare (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have observed the same with some of OZ's edits. - NQ (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The master, if he is the editor I have suspected for a long time now, has a habit of varying his english to avoid suspicion. There still might be more than one person behind the whole sock farm though. There is no way they could have lapped up so many edits so quickly even if they were using AWB. Amitrochates (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit I've had extensive interactions with both Blades and AmritasyaPutra, and while I have suspected off-wiki coordination on occasion, but I've also seen blatant on wiki canvassing, and they spoke (typed?) different varieties of bad english, so I really did not expect this outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I feel that there have to multiple people behind this. Blades and AP have tag-teamed far too often, without any slips, that I cannot imagine one person doing that. Look at this page, and the associated article revision history, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to read this discussion again Talk:Hinduism/Archive_30#R_f_c_:_Should_we_revert_to_a_former_version.3F. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And this Talk:Hinduism/Archive_28#Recent_edits_by_Joshua_Jonathan_in_the_lead_of_the_article may have been him as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I am not the only one who is shocked. But he is the actual sockmaster as his account is earliest.

1, 2, 3Cosmic  Emperor  05:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Blades is now requesting an unblock on the grounds that he was never a sock. Does somebody more experience than me know how this will play out? How set in stone are CU findings? I seem to remember that Yogesh Khandke was unblocked even though a CU stated he was socking.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom blocks are set in stone (appeal only to Arbcom, who would take some convincing having only just sitebanned OZ etc). CU findings are less firm but not often overturned, and I think we can be sure that the evidence has been reviewed by several CUs in this case. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, err, I mean Cedric. There is a case even worse than OccultZone's and the admin who got caught out for COI... Certain IAC socks and their terroristic actions towards editors. That's putting you and others thru hell. The username Cedric is free for use. It wouldn't be sockpuppeting because Cedric and you don't communicate too well. Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol! Me and Cedric don't communicate well with each other, or with everyone else ... or both? Interesting that Anonymousbananas was blocked as a sock yesterday and this user has turned up. Not editing the same stuff but clearly familiar with how we do things. Hopefully, just a converted IP. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what I find most shocking is how one person could manage all of these accounts, even if he were in school. I mean, I don't know how OZ made over 200K edits in less than two years much less edit as other sock accounts. And it doesn't seem to have had any big agenda beyond occasional support for each other. How does one person juggle all of this? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to Liz; I haven't interacted with OZ, the supposed master, very much, but both Blades and AP have had quite a tendency to push a hindu-nationalist agenda, particularly in their disregard for scholarly sources in favor of "what they know." Now I don't know if that was the primary purpose of the sockfarm, but the bias certainly exists, and has been noted by people besides myself. I also am fairly certain that there are multiple people involved here, just because of the numerous varieties of bad english that they employed without people getting suspicious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There might not have been just one person and there might have been some financial motivation to do this (like it could have been their day job). However, there is no way they could have raised their edit count to 200K without automated editing. I think some of their other sockpuppets, who this CU check might have missed, will show a similar pattern- an obsession with raising one's edit count through automated WikiGnomish edits. Two very wise editors had the foresight to oppose Wifione's RfA for similar reasons. Amitrochates (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not forget Darkness Shines also. DS is blocked once again and he got support from lots of editors. Nobody checked the links, I mentioned as 1,2,3.Cosmic  Emperor  10:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush what happened?

Sitush what happened to the Article "Cheramar Christians"I ave written? Why didn't you write to me n talk page if the article was not good or violated or anything. I just what to know what happened to Article "Cheramar Christians?"--Peter Thomas Olickal 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• The previous brought to you by Olickal Peter Thomas. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Olickal Peter Thomas, I can't speak for Sitush--well, I can, and I will, though I shouldn't. Please see the history where Sitush has given many explanations for reverts he made to the article; I had a quick look at the article and Sitush's edits and I agree with them. For instance, the content was not well-written, and the references were not acceptable; no doubt Sitush can explain that in more detail. The article is now redirected to Pulayar.

  Also, please see Wikipedia:Signatures--your signature needs to include a link to your user or talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Let me ask you, the article "Pulayar" What is the reality or information regarding the actual Pulayar caste people of Kerala? No historical lineage, existence, evolvement, present status, reformation, Pulaya kings, the different clans of Pulayas, names, Conversion to christianity about 85% of Kerala's Pulayars took place during 18th to 19th centuries, no information about it, real pulaya culture/songs/sorcery/beliefs nothing. Really check it one time and then compare the Article I wrote I wrote. As you asked, it was written by me. The information I got from web, was given links. And I read the books which I mentioned in references, they are there in my shelf. YOu know.

Now I understood one thing, the articles which are entered by your team are "reliable", for your are a group. I checked the page creator of "Pulayar" from a foreign country. How much information that person can get about a group of people who are far from there living in south India? Impossible!!! When I wrote the first Article Rajamudy, your team said no much reference, I added. Now when I added enough and real references and links, you bare saying "too much", what is the point of truth. At least you could have talked the deletion of the article to me on my talk page, but you did not. Sorry the Wikipedia, I thought really trustworthy and truthful source of information. Thank you very much a hundred times for keeping my two articles in Wikipedia, really thanks, if you need please delete that also.You said that you cannot verify the article, si ti the reason deleting the articles? And simply saying sorry. If Wikipedia needs resourceful, real, reliable and descriptive articles, you might have kept my article. So May God bless you and your efforts in Wikipedia!!!

Appreciating "Houn" an editor of Wikipedia who edited, corrected and guided me with politeness and also to whom I shared about my article "Cheramar Christians", I may stop adding articles to Wikipedia.

Sitush, please I humbly request you that please don't redirect "Cheramar Christians", please because it is utterly wrong, you may redirect "Cheramar" no worng it is correct, but "Cheramar Christians are not Pulayars. Since you look forward for truthfulness and reliability, please don't make mistakes. You may delete "Cheramar Christians" words, it will be more good than keeping a mistake. You may check or ask to anyone what I said is correct or not. Or else please check my article "Cheramar Christians" if you have a copy, Castes of Kerala, as per Govt. of Kerala, you will see the mistake. Thank You.

--Peter Thomas Olickal 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)  

Dear Sitush, the sentence which you said that I have copied, I haven't copied from anywhere, it is my own sentence. There might be mistakes in grammar or forming the sentence. You may please understand, such mistakes or sentences which you feel are not good and unreliable, might have deleted or removed and the rest may be published or kept back. Cheramars are same as Pulayas or they are categorized as Pulayas only, when it comes to Hinduism. And due to caste system and suffering they embraced Christianity and thus they are included in Cheramar Christian category, in which they are not at all Scheduled Castes (SCs), they are BCs. This is the real issues in behind why CHeramars are suffering. You do not know the real fact, and so you make statements like that.

You just think about the other high caste christian groups from Kerala, their articles are included in Wikipedia, the way they liked, for they are influential and highly educated. No article or even the word "Cheramar Christians" in Wikipedia until I came with the idea. Even you said about the article "Pulayar"; did a word about Cheramar Christians? No, then how can you say that it is reliable and truthful? Now about 85% of the Kerala's Pulayars are Christians; to say from SC to BC and forms the majority population of Christianity in Kerala. But you will not get their total population and numbers, since they are scattered to all the Christian groups. Let me point to you clearly, I am being one among them crores of Cheramar Christians, my father being worked for them since the independence of India in 1947 onwards to 55 years, I have all the books and writings related to Pulayas and Cheramars in my home. Then you say that I have copied. And I am a person who worked and works with UNDP, European Union, UN Agencies, World Bank and number of foreign funding agencies and many Government Projects in India, preparing project proposals, feasibility studies, Reporting. Hence, if not much, to a small extent, I know how to write or form explanation about a community or caste or a social group.

I request you to keep the article after deleting all the unreliable sources or ask me to do. Its a humble request, because there is no mention about the Kerala's most populated community in the world's biggest encyclopedia, You may check my claim. Still the real work force of Kerala. If you think that what I plead here is genuine, please do it, so that helping them from lifting to a self-esteem that will boost the next generation. Since they were considered little is written about them in history, only only foreign, clearly Portuguese, Dutch, British travellers, historians and writers written more about them. Now you understand and keep the article or at least the first paragraph which I wrote to make an identity of them in the encyclopedia. You may keep yourself, instead of my article. I really felt deeply in heart that why everyone hurt the community or in their unlucky condition. Please you may write about them as you had written about "Pulayas". Thanking You. With a hope in your magnanimity ............................. --Peter Thomas Olickal 03:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)

• Olickal Peter Thomas, please see Wikipedia:Signatures--your signature needs to include a link to your user or talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies has said pretty much what I would say. You can see more detailed explanations here. The single biggest problem was that almost all of the content actually related to the history of the Pulayar and thus would have been better suited in the article about them. I didn't move it over to that article because a lot of it was poorly sourced and pretty much unintelligible. We can fix poor writing style (no offence intended) but not if the sources are rubbish also.

I do believe that there needs to be some material on Wikipedia about the community, which would probably consist mostly of demographics and an explanation regarding why/when they converted. I have done a little bit of reading on the subject and think that the best thing to do would be to have a section within the Pulayar article and if it grows into something substantial (which I doubt it will) then split it into a separate article.

You mean well and you were not exactly misguided by those people you name above. The entire subject area of caste tends to be difficult to understand for a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia, even when they are experienced. I'm afraid that in this case it looks as if they perhaps could not "see the wood for the trees". That is, they were rightly concerned about the need for sources etc but so much so that they didn't realise the extent to which the Cheramar and Pulayar articles overlapped anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I come bearing a gift

I thought you and the good doctor would love to read this; prose that would leave Chaucer dumbfounded. —SpacemanSpiff 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Chaucer's prose wasn't worth reading anyway. Hey, it's Spiffsterix! You totally liven up every room you walk into. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Another editor has since identified and cleaned up the copyvio mess from that article and it's now quite bare, depriving you of the reading pleasure. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Damn! Now I'll never know where they got the "European brass band" from for their funerals. Or learn about "the practice of keeping woman". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• A cause for much sorrow indeed. I did wonder what I was supposed to be looking at. As for your query, Xanth, Besses o' th' Barn Band were prolific world tourists, putting many of today's rock and pop stars to shame, so perhaps they did the honours. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, on the subject of tortured prose and pov, take a look at this version of yet another Indian criminal-politician and compare with how the article is shaping up now. If the original was the work of one person, I'd be inclined to block them. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently the state I left it in after declining a speedy in this state as a newbie admin. Perhaps an example for full protection upon creating the article and never allowing any change to it! —SpacemanSpiff 12:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Those damn newbies ... <g> The power of criminal-politicians in India never ceases to amaze me: just fixing that one article is causing me to amend several related ones, all of which are very poor and one of which was mostly copyvio. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin

Dear Sitush sir i want to give you information that please Edit some thing like in Bhumihar Wikipedia that they are two divisions of Bhumihar 1- Bhuinhar brahmins in Eastern uttarpradesh and babhan in magadh Bihar.

please change

In Bihar, they are also known as Babhan [5]

and they have also been called Bhuinhar .

to

they called babhan in magadh Bihar and also called as Bhuinhar in Purvanchal uttarpradesh.

please also edit in Brahmin Wikipedia

that bhumihar Brahmin Regarded as brahmin in murshidabad & maldah district of Bengal and in Nepal where BHuinhar brahmins migrated ancient tly. in purvanchal and magadh Bihar they claim brahmin but other communities does not belive. their must be two parts done bhumihar brahmins are regarded as brahmin must but only bhumihar must not.

thank you sir bhumihars must be divided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahmrishi Diwakar Rai Bhuinhar Brahmin (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They are not Brahmins anyway, so it is irrelevant. I have pointed this out to you on your own talk page. My apologies for not realising that you had posted here. - Sitush (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 June

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

• On the Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Somnath Bharti

Hi,

If necessary you may wish to contact the editor at the talk page (and ping the editor concerned). If that does not work, you may wish to go to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to seek help. WP:3RR 3-revert rule exists in Wikipedia which prevents the same editor from making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, and the exemption under policy for BLP is potentially controversial, so it's best to not use such exemption.

Thanks, — Andrew Y _{talk contrib} 12:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Er, yeah ;) It is all in hand: it was already at BLPN and on the article talk page before you reverted. No 3RR warning was issued. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. I will try to convince the editor to respond to your message at the talk page (and issue a 3RR warning). — Andrew Y _{talk contrib} 13:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

They've blanked their talk of all warnings. An admin issued an edit warring notice just before it all went. I'd let them deal with it - it is what they are (not) paid for. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ujjain FYI

hi, What is the deal with you?? Avanti was the old name of Ujjain. So ya there will be some similarity. But what about other part of the article, Geography, climate and Introduction. Why are you deleting them. they were not from that page. And untill you can come up with better content for the Ujjain page. Plz don't delete it. There are more than 30 links on that page for peace sake. And BTW FYI Ujjain is not municipality its Municipal Corporation!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan08.08 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've explained the problem. It is now at WP:AN3. We could have worked to resolve this but you were intent on having your way and you were in breach of our licensing. Right now, aside from you, I'm also dealing with two another people person who seems unwilling to make even an attempt to understand that we have certain rules and guidelines here. I'm really not in the mood for this. Is it a full moon in India or something? - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyrus Mistry

This discussion may be of interest to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cyrus_Pallonji_Mistry

You may also wish to see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Pallonji_Mistry Soham321 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't give a crap. It is a content issue and I've raised it on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Newspaper

That's an issue with that CSE. I generally add additional words like "Prem Kumar Dhumal 1944", "Prem Kumar Dhumal Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha" etc. All Google search operators should works like -, "" --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried adding "2007" and that returns only results back to 2014. The problem is, I'm blind here: trying to expand a bio when I know nothing about it and so am in a catch-22 re: how to refine phrasing of a search. The guy was chief minister from 2008 but our article says nothing at all about it! - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here are a few. I am not good in Julian dates. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• You are a star! Thanks very much - all I need is a few hooks and I can build searches from them. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Niyogi page edited with proper sources but had reverted back again

Sitush either you keep the content intact or remove the page itself, we dont want our readers to read your version of the story and your 'assumption' of what Niyogi is.

What i observed is you like to quote western authors and refer them as very authentic and Indian references as wrong. You should check the refered sites and their owners who have Phds and yet its not enough for you since its not coming by someone from America or West. This is not acceptable and I reject edits, theyre totally unwanted

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptahill (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheramar Christians

Hai Sitush, Its me and let me request you one thing regarding the "Article" Cheramar Christians, Can I come with an utterly new article in all sense as Wikipedia wants on Cheramar Christians? If possible let me correct my mistakes and learn to do something new. Please talk to me. Peter Thomas 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)--Peter Thomas 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)

Hi, I am doing too many things at once right now, so sorry for the delay. Have you used a sandbox before? You could create a draft there and then ask some people to take a look at it. If you don't mind suffering delays like you just have done then I'm happy to review a draft and explain any problems. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the Bihari Rajputs page

Hello, if you have the time then would you please have a look at the page I created on Bihari Rajputs. I would really appreciate if you could point out any problems you can see. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suijai (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Suijai: sure, I'll take a look at Bihari Rajputs later today. I'll leave any comments at the article talk page. Thanks for letting me know of it. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no a caste named "Christian Pulayrs" anywhere, if you do not know particularly what you talk, better keep silence. please correct it so to do not make serious mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.0.20 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response in the section that precedes this. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, one of the members added a notability tag to the Bihari Rajputs with the reasoning being that it's a statewise breakdown of a caste. However they failed to do so for Punjabi Rajputs, Rajputs of Gujarat and Sindhi Rajputs despite them also being in a similar vein. Could you please look into this. I would also like to add that Bihari Rajputs are the eastern most Rajput community with their own customs, culture and history so I think it's fair they have there own space on this website. Thanks.Suijai (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

In fairness to who ever has done that, it is a concern that I have also. I'm just spread a bit too thinly to do much about it at the moment. Yes, the same rationale probably would apply to the Punjabi etc variants. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'd appreciate your input when you have the time. Thanks.Suijai (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

About Sitaula(Surname)

Sitaula (surname) page is notably fine. If you meant me to add more references for the article, I will try; or else the article is perfect to be in the Wikipedia.Mr. Sitush, I believe you are a good editor, but this edit is not that necessary. It has got good links and references as per my vision.And yes, What is a reliable source in your vision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niush Sitaula (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)